NationStates Jolt Archive

This makes me so glad that Bush totally ignored the UN. Anyone want to hazard a guess at which Security Council member Saddam influenced with his bribes?

The inspector’s report implicates the top U.N. official overseeing the $60 billion program, accusing him of accepting bribes in the form of vouchers for Iraqi oil sales, and details Iraqi manipulation to illegally enrich Saddam’s government and influence Security Council members.

He said the Iraqi government manipulated the U.N. program from 1996 to 2003 to acquire billions of dollars in illicit gains and to import illegal goods, including parts for missile systems. The report estimates Saddam generated $10.9 billion in hard currency through illicit means from 1990 to 2003 during the entire U.N. sanctions period after the Gulf War.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6194795/

However:
parts for weapons systems != WMD

Ya I know, Bush talks about how Kerry would ignore America's allies? What the hell do you think Bush does? Australia followed them into Nam and Blair kisses Bush's butt at ever turn. The Bush Administraition has led to an all time high in anti-Americanism globally.

However:
parts for weapons systems != WMD

For 13 years Saddam bypassed the sanctions against him. Members of the UN kept saying that the sanctions would work. Well, they were not enforced and some countries were actually helping Saddam get away with it. France fought hard for Saddam and the sanctions. Now we see why. The UN is a joke and when this investigation is finished, it just might be too. Hopefully so.

Ya I know, Bush talks about how Kerry would ignore America's allies? What the hell do you think Bush does? Australia followed them into Nam and Blair kisses Bush's butt at ever turn. The Bush Administraition has lead to an all time high in anti-Americanism globally.
Unfortunately, the response you'll get to that by a lot of conservatives is along these lines: "Who cares about the rest of the world? Other countries aren't important, THIS IS AMERICA, LAND OF THE FREE AND HOME OF THE BRAVE, GOD BLESS THE USA!!!"

Ya I know, Bush talks about how Kerry would ignore America's allies? What the hell do you think Bush does? Australia followed them into Nam and Blair kisses Bush's butt at ever turn. The Bush Administraition has lead to an all time high in anti-Americanism globally.

How you come up with an anti-Bush diatribe in a thread about the UN and how some members allowed Saddam to bypass the sanctions for 13 years is beyond me, but you go right ahead. While some worry about what other countries think of the US, there is a growing number of us who really do not care. You can think what you want, it will not change our lives.

So are you agreeing with me then or is that an indirect attack? And I'm not an American but what America does affects a heck of a lot of the world.

So are you agreeing with me then or is that an indirect attack? And I'm not an American but what America does affects a heck of a lot of the world.

No, I am not agreeing with you. Nor do I care if other people do not like the US. Times and opinions change. However, you totally ignored the topic of the post and went on your own tangent. I guess hatred has blinded you so much you cannot comment on anything else but Bush.

For 13 years Saddam bypassed the sanctions against him. Members of the UN kept saying that the sanctions would work. Well, they were not enforced and some countries were actually helping Saddam get away with it. France fought hard for Saddam and the sanctions. Now we see why. The UN is a joke and when this investigation is finished, it just might be too. Hopefully so.
The UN isn't perfect. Neither is our government. Neither is any government. No person is perfect. I agree Saddam was a bad guy. However, Bush chose a rather...inopportune time to go after him, and he didn't even make it look like he wanted to try diplomatic efforts. Saddam was NOT a threat to the United States, the biggest threat was, and still is Al Qaeda. In invading Iraq, we took our eye off public enemy #1 - Bin Laden. In fact, by invading Iraq, things in general are much worse for us. Al Qaeda and Hamas are having a much easier time recruiting new terrorists because of our actions, which are interpreted as attacks against Islam in general. Iraq didn't have terrorists (or at least, very few) before we invaded. Now, it's a hotbed of terrorist activity. Due to Bush's policies, we are more at risk now than we were before. The money that's gone into Iraq should have been spent securing our borders and ports here at home (increasing border patrols on the Canadian border, inspecting more cargo containers coming in off ships), and funding the fight against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or wherever else it takes us. It should not have gone to remove whatever dictator rubs our President the wrong way.

The UN isn't perfect. Neither is our government. Neither is any government. No person is perfect. I agree Saddam was a bad guy. However, Bush chose a rather...inopportune time to go after him, and he didn't even make it look like he wanted to try diplomatic efforts. Saddam was NOT a threat to the United States, the biggest threat was, and still is Al Qaeda. In invading Iraq, we took our eye off public enemy #1 - Bin Laden. In fact, by invading Iraq, things in general are much worse for us. Al Qaeda and Hamas are having a much easier time recruiting new terrorists because of our actions, which are interpreted as attacks against Islam in general. Iraq didn't have terrorists (or at least, very few) before we invaded. Now, it's a hotbed of terrorist activity. Due to Bush's policies, we are more at risk now than we were before. The money that's gone into Iraq should have been spent securing our borders and ports here at home (increasing border patrols on the Canadian border, inspecting more cargo containers coming in off ships), and funding the fight against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or wherever else it takes us. It should not have gone to remove whatever dictator rubs our President the wrong way.


Yes, it was an inopportune time...however, now we know why the UN was so against the action. Everyone was making money off Saddam. Saddam was providing support for terrorism. Have you not noticed that the suicide bombings in Israel have greatly diminished since he was removed? Saddam supported Hamas, who has stated that the US is a target now. That you guys would overlook the implications of this shows that the significane is lost on you.

The UN as a credible entity is finished. They can NEVER call for sanctions again as there is no guarantee that ranking members will not violate them at will. How many French and German made weapons systems have we found in Iraq? Both countries sold Saddam weapons in violation of the sanctions. Why we listen to them now is a mystery to me at this point. They are as guilty as Saddam in any action that Saddams support for Hamas and other groups resulted in.

They have NO right to criticize the US for ANYTHING we have done in Iraq. To do so would be incredibly hypocritical.

...Saddam supported Hamas, who has stated that the US is a target now. That you guys would overlook the implications of this shows that the significane is lost on you...

Yes, Saddam supported Hamas (in that he gave rewards to families of suicide bombers). However, it logically follows from your own quote that there's a good chance Hamas said the US is now a target because we invaded Iraq and removed Saddam. Hence, invading Iraq made the world more dangerous for America and Americans. Do you think Hamas would want to go after Americans if we hadn't invaded Iraq? I doubt it, their bone to pick is with Israel. (On a side note, I also think we give Israel way too much blind support, regardless of what administration is currently in the White House. They are nearly, if not just as much to blame in this conflict as the Palestinians.)

So everyone involved was corrupt. Well I feel great now. :rolleyes:

Finally this is up.

Saddam played the UN like a puppet and won. Now that this report is out that Saddam bribed France and Germany and Russia in exchange for Illegal WMD material (france), Roland Missile Parts (France), Jet Parts, Etc Etc Etc!

Also stated that when the sanctions were lifted, Saddam would've RESTARTED his WMD research and developement.

Finally this is up.

Saddam played the UN like a puppet and won. Now that this report is out that Saddam bribed France and Germany and Russia in exchange for Illegal WMD material (france), Roland Missile Parts (France), Jet Parts, Etc Etc Etc!

Also stated that when the sanctions were lifted, Saddam would've RESTARTED his WMD research and developement.
But that means Sanctuons were working. If sanctions stopped him from restarting WMD research then they were working.
Its really that simple.

But that means Sanctuons were working. If sanctions stopped him from restarting WMD research then they were working.
Its really that simple.

Obviously they were not working. If they were working then why was he getting these things, all forbidden by the way, from France, Germany and Russia in VIOLATION of UN Sanctions?

Face it, sanctions were NOT working at all because Saddam Hussein bribed the UN through the Oil for Food. It is now confirmed thanks to this report.

Obviously they were not working. If they were working then why was he getting these things, all forbidden by the way, from France, Germany and Russia in VIOLATION of UN Sanctions?

Face it, sanctions were NOT working at all because Saddam Hussein bribed the UN through the Oil for Food. It is now confirmed thanks to this report.
No he was able to get money in the program which was wrong. Bad France (hit wuth newspaper), go to your stool!
Anyway, however, you didn not dispute that yourself:

Also stated that when the sanctions were lifted, Saddam would've RESTARTED his WMD research and developement.


According to you I am right. The sanctions kept him from restarting his programs. Thus they were working. True not 100% efficiency but how many government programs are?

No he was able to get money in the program which was wrong. Bad France (hit wuth newspaper), go to your stool!
Anyway, however, you didn not dispute that yourself:


According to you I am right. The sanctions kept him from restarting his programs. Thus they were working. True not 100% efficiency but how many government programs are?

If he truely disarmed then he would not have the capacity to restart his WMD research. Since he obviously did, sanctions were not working.

If he truely disarmed then he would not have the capacity to restart his WMD research. Since he obviously did, sanctions were not working.
Nonsense...

If he truely disarmed then he would not have the capacity to restart his WMD research. Since he obviously did, sanctions were not working.
So when I said 100% efficiency it was not... you just ignored my words?

Please, listen, I said it was not 100% efficiency.

But why can he not restart his research if he disarmed... I could disarm all my guns but still know how they work. I could also make more if I knew how to make them. It does not change my knowledge.

Maybe you meant couldn't do it in a day but then it doesn't say he would be able to to a day later either.

What do you mean he can't ever do it again if he fully disarmed? YOu mean he has to gain amnesia?

*Snooorreeee*

ah what?

Oh Biff's complaining about the UN again.

*Snoreeeee*

Yes, Saddam supported Hamas (in that he gave rewards to families of suicide bombers). However, it logically follows from your own quote that there's a good chance Hamas said the US is now a target because we invaded Iraq and removed Saddam. Hence, invading Iraq made the world more dangerous for America and Americans. Do you think Hamas would want to go after Americans if we hadn't invaded Iraq? I doubt it, their bone to pick is with Israel. (On a side note, I also think we give Israel way too much blind support, regardless of what administration is currently in the White House. They are nearly, if not just as much to blame in this conflict as the Palestinians.)

Now WHO says that the only support that Saddam was giving Hamas was for the families of the "martyrs?" Suicide bombings have really dropped off since Saddam was deposed. I know it looks like Hamas has listed us as a target because of Saddam, but I think it has more to do with our efforts at blocking their funding. Saddam was obviously a large part of that.

*Snooorreeee*

ah what?

Oh Biff's complaining about the UN again.

*Snoreeeee*

Blatant corruption that gets at the very argument that the UN had against the US going into Iraq and you choose to ignore it and or dismiss it as nothing. hmmmm

France, Germany and Russia.....the three countries so against the US going into Iraq were being bribed by Iraq to do just that. Now they have been caught and the sanctions they so wanted to continue were just a money bag for them. What did Chirac do with the $1.8 billion France received from Saddam?

Now is the time to disband the UN and denounce it for what it really is, a den of liars and criminals.

The UN isn't perfect. Neither is our government. Neither is any government. No person is perfect. I agree Saddam was a bad guy. However, Bush chose a rather...inopportune time to go after him, and he didn't even make it look like he wanted to try diplomatic efforts. Saddam was NOT a threat to the United States, the biggest threat was, and still is Al Qaeda. In invading Iraq, we took our eye off public enemy #1 - Bin Laden. In fact, by invading Iraq, things in general are much worse for us. Al Qaeda and Hamas are having a much easier time recruiting new terrorists because of our actions, which are interpreted as attacks against Islam in general. Iraq didn't have terrorists (or at least, very few) before we invaded. Now, it's a hotbed of terrorist activity. Due to Bush's policies, we are more at risk now than we were before. The money that's gone into Iraq should have been spent securing our borders and ports here at home (increasing border patrols on the Canadian border, inspecting more cargo containers coming in off ships), and funding the fight against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or wherever else it takes us. It should not have gone to remove whatever dictator rubs our President the wrong way.
you are john kerry or some brain washed moron becasue that was is entire debate last tuesday.

Blatant corruption that gets at the very argument that the UN had against the US going into Iraq and you choose to ignore it and or dismiss it as nothing. hmmmm

France, Germany and Russia.....the three countries so against the US going into Iraq were being bribed by Iraq to do just that. Now they have been caught and the sanctions they so wanted to continue were just a money bag for them. What did Chirac do with the $1.8 billion France received from Saddam?

Now is the time to disband the UN and denounce it for what it really is, a den of liars and criminals.
no liberal listens to you create a second ancount then start threads like this with them and join the topic as yourself and beat them to a pulp

No, I am not agreeing with you. Nor do I care if other people do not like the US. Times and opinions change. However, you totally ignored the topic of the post and went on your own tangent. I guess hatred has blinded you so much you cannot comment on anything else but Bush.



Well I'm defending the UN because they were right all along, there were no WMDS. North Korea has them but they almost seem ignored by the international community. And my question wasn't directed towards you.

Well I'm defending the UN because they were right all along, there were no WMDS. North Korea has them but they almost seem ignored by the international community. And my question wasn't directed towards you.

The UN was right? France, Germany and Russia were PAID by Saddam to resist US efforts to get a stronger resolution. They succeeded, but Bush saw the situation for what it was and acted anyway. The three culprits whined and bitched....and NOW we know why they were so anti-US about the whole thing. This is a good thing, for now we can be justified in our hatred of the UN. Not like we NEED any justification in that, but it always helps....;)

The UN was right? France, Germany and Russia were PAID by Saddam to resist US efforts to get a stronger resolution. They succeeded, but Bush saw the situation for what it was and acted anyway. The three culprits whined and bitched....and NOW we know why they were so anti-US about the whole thing. This is a good thing, for now we can be justified in our hatred of the UN. Not like we NEED any justification in that, but it always helps....;)



Well what was Iraq really about and don't say getting rid of Saddam because there are far waorse dictators in the world than him. The US should have more people in Afghanistan and some in Sudan so that the genocide ends there but they cannot simply leave Iraq the way it is or it will self distruct.

The UN was right? France, Germany and Russia were PAID by Saddam to resist US efforts to get a stronger resolution. They succeeded, but Bush saw the situation for what it was and acted anyway. The three culprits whined and bitched....and NOW we know why they were so anti-US about the whole thing. This is a good thing, for now we can be justified in our hatred of the UN. Not like we NEED any justification in that, but it always helps....;)

Correct Biff! I wonder if the UN is even popular in the US! I am glad that the report is now out and though WMD was not in Iraq, it basically threw open the door in the Oil for Food Scandal and bribary. This is the biggest scandal in Human history.

Well what was Iraq really about and don't say getting rid of Saddam because there are far waorse dictators in the world than him. The US should have more people in Afghanistan and some in Sudan so that the genocide ends there but they cannot simply leave Iraq the way it is or it will self distruct.

Why not have the French go into Sudan? Was it not one of their "colonies? Or was it the British or Italians? So many European colonies in Africa it is hard to keep track of them. Sudan is on the UN human rights commission, so WHY is there such a thing going on there? Where is the rest of the world? You guys are always the first to jump on the US when it acts in it's OWN interest, then jump up and down when it does not rush to help in some god forsaken place like Sudan.

As for why we went into Iraq? it was to prevent a possibility of Saddam turning over chemical or biological weapons to terrorists. I am not so sure he didn't.

Now is the time to disband the UN and denounce it for what it really is, a den of liars and criminals.

*Applauds loudly*

Biff Pileon for President!!!

Originally Posted by Corneliu:
If he truely disarmed then he would not have the capacity to restart his WMD research. Since he obviously did, sanctions were not working.

The sanctions were working about as well as grounding a teenager. Yeah, it may keep them from doing what you didn't want them too, but they now the whole time that the grounding will be taken away. What Saddam was doing was the same as a teenager calling all his or her friends to organize a huge party the night after he or she gets ungrounded.

Only, here, with what this article says, the grounded teenager was helping one of his or her parents do something that the other one wouldn't agree with. Like, say, getting away with an affair.

Groundings don't work if there is no lesson learned. Saddam wasn't learning.

*Applauds loudly*

Biff Pileon for President!!!

Seconds the motion

The sanctions were working about as well as grounding a teenager. Yeah, it may keep them from doing what you didn't want them too, but they now the whole time that the grounding will be taken away. What Saddam was doing was the same as a teenager calling all his or her friends to organize a huge party the night after he or she gets ungrounded.

Only, here, with what this article says, the grounded teenager was helping one of his or her parents do something that the other one wouldn't agree with. Like, say, getting away with an affair.

Groundings don't work if there is no lesson learned. Saddam wasn't learning.

I agree with you 100%!

Why not have the French go into Sudan? Was it not one of their "colonies? Or was it the British or Italians? So many European colonies in Africa it is hard to keep track of them. Sudan is on the UN human rights commission, so WHY is there such a thing going on there? Where is the rest of the world? You guys are always the first to jump on the US when it acts in it's OWN interest, then jump up and down when it does not rush to help in some god forsaken place like Sudan.

As for why we went into Iraq? it was to prevent a possibility of Saddam turning over chemical or biological weapons to terrorists. I am not so sure he didn't.



And thats why I'm glad I'm Canadian, because we didn't get ourselves into the mess of colonies and then feel obliged (or not) years later to clean up messes in them. And if the US wants to leave then UN, fine but don't expect a lot of support for any further adventures into the Middle East and yes, every great empire evetually falls, from the Romans to the Soviet Union. If it were up to me, Canada and our piece of crap military would be in Sudan but those damn Liberals cut military spending and all 30 of our troops are in Afghanistan.

Why not have the French go into Sudan? Was it not one of their "colonies? Or was it the British or Italians? So many European colonies in Africa it is hard to keep track of them. Sudan is on the UN human rights commission, so WHY is there such a thing going on there? Where is the rest of the world? You guys are always the first to jump on the US when it acts in it's OWN interest, then jump up and down when it does not rush to help in some god forsaken place like Sudan.

As for why we went into Iraq? it was to prevent a possibility of Saddam turning over chemical or biological weapons to terrorists. I am not so sure he didn't.
I need to add this to my signature but the Euros barely think america should choose wether or not to to talk in the UN NOBODY EXCEPT BRITAN FRIGIN LIKES US. :mad: :(

And thats why I'm glad I'm Canadian, because we didn't get ourselves into the mess of colonies and then feel obliged (or not) years later to clean up messes in them. And if the US wants to leave then UN, fine but don't expect a lot of support for any further adventures into the Middle East and yes, every great empire evetually falls, from the Romans to the Soviet Union. If it were up to me, Canada and our piece of crap military would be in Sudan but those damn Liberals cut military spending and all 30 of our troops are in Afghanistan.

HAHAHAHA!!! Britain colonized Canada, as did the French. They did the same here in the US too incase you have forgotten your history.

As for the UN, I doubt we'll leave it. Someone has to protect Israeli interests on the Security Council.

And thats why I'm glad I'm Canadian, because we didn't get ourselves into the mess of colonies and then feel obliged (or not) years later to clean up messes in them. And if the US wants to leave then UN, fine but don't expect a lot of support for any further adventures into the Middle East and yes, every great empire evetually falls, from the Romans to the Soviet Union. If it were up to me, Canada and our piece of crap military would be in Sudan but those damn Liberals cut military spending and all 30 of our troops are in Afghanistan.

Thats what happens when you rely on the US so much for your defense. Since the US is such a nice country and not one that wants to take over other countries for either land or influence you are fortunate that Canada does not border the former Soviet Union.

Yes, every great empire has fallen. They do so because they aquire lands from other people who do not appreciate it. The US does not do such things so we are hardly an "empire."

The UN and Its Evils
1. Self Importance The UN wouldn't be so bad if it understood that it was powerless
2. Idiocy, france and germany both did exactly what they weren't supposed to do, got away with it and are not disrespected for it.
3. The US, and why they Envy us not hate envy they want our power are might and since world leaders behave like american school children... man I love that line

HAHAHAHA!!! Britain colonized Canada, as did the French. They did the same here in the US too incase you have forgotten your history.

As for the UN, I doubt we'll leave it. Someone has to protect Israeli interests on the Security Council.



I said Canada hasn't colonized other countries but yes, we were colonized by the Brits and French.

Well, we did acquire lands from other people...we just either massacred them or moved them to the worst parts of the country to live on reservations. Of course, we're still not an Empire...

The Native Americans didn't appreciate it when we took their land, but they are appreciating the millions rolling into casinos that help them better the despicable conditions that our government left them in.

Well, we did acquire lands from other people...we just either massacred them or moved them to the worst parts of the country to live on reservations. Of course, we're still not an Empire...

The Native Americans didn't appreciate it when we took their land, but they are appreciating the millions rolling into casinos that help them better the despicable conditions that our government left them in.

As an American Indian I know all about that, but it was the British, Spanish and French who came here and started the ball rolling. However, that has nothing to do with modern times.

Ya I know, Bush talks about how Kerry would ignore America's allies? What the hell do you think Bush does? Australia followed them into Nam and Blair kisses Bush's butt at ever turn. The Bush Administraition has led to an all time high in anti-Americanism globally.

( shrug ) And your point is?

( shrug ) And your point is?




Well, even if the UN is ineffective and lier filled, don't make it sound like Bush has made the right choice every time.

Well, even if the UN is ineffective and lier filled, don't make it sound like Bush has made the right choice every time.

No, Bush has made PLENTY of mistakes...but standing up to the UN was not one of them as it turns out. NOW we know what was going on behind our backs by our "allies." France and Germany are NOT to be trusted as well as they once were. They joined forces with Saddam against the very votes they made in the UN. They supplied many weapons systems to Saddam that are being used against our troops even today. The blood of every US soldier killed by these weapons is squarely on their hands.

No, Bush has made PLENTY of mistakes...but standing up to the UN was not one of them as it turns out. NOW we know what was going on behind our backs by our "allies." France and Germany are NOT to be trusted as well as they once were. They joined forces with Saddam against the very votes they made in the UN. They supplied many weapons systems to Saddam that are being used against our troops even today. The blood of every US soldier killed by these weapons is squarely on their hands.

Tell it as it is Biff.

That article Biff posted isn't nearly as damning as he purports it is. Here's the current status of the Food For Oil investigation--some people in the US claim that Hussein was bribing officials of the UN to circumvent the sanctions. Where's their proof? Well, right now, all they have are claims, oh and as Josh Marshall of the Washington Monthly (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_03.php#003616) reports, some documents provided by Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, documents they won't let anyone see.
But, as I've noted repeatedly before, I remain skeptical since the documents incriminating these individuals came right out of the Chalabi operation in Baghdad. And, quite suspiciously, he and his assigns have repeatedly refused to hand those documents over to independent investigative authorities to authenticate them. Again and again, silly or nonsensical excuses were proferred for not doing so.

Needless to say, with Mr. Chalabi, ascertaining whether these documents are forgeries or not is hardly an academic exercise....

But has any independent observer -- most notably the Volcker Commission -- gotten access to those documents yet? As recently as August 10th, Judith Miller reported in the Times that Volcker still had not been allowed access to the original documents to ascertain whether or not they were forgeries.

This passage in an article in the AP suggests that hasn't happened ...

The lists, parts of which had been published previously, were compiled from 13 secret files maintained by former Iraqi vice-president Taha Yassin Ramadan and the former oil minister, Amir Rashid.

But there was no independent verification. "We name those individuals and entities here in the interest of candor, clarity and thoroughness," the report said, adding that it did not "investigate or judge those non-Iraqi individuals."

Several U.S. firms were on the list but their names were not released because of privacy laws.
There's a separate question about why U.S. firms on the list aren't being identified, only foreigners. But, setting that aside, has any independent body yet reviewed those documents? And if not, why are they being given such credence considering Chalabi's record as a convicted criminal, forger of documents, producer of phony intelligence and, in all likelihood, someone who passed on American intelligence to Iran?
So while it is indeed possible that Hussein was trying to circumvent the UN sanctions, it's hardly the open and shut case that Biff wishes it was.

bump

i think the worlds nations behave like school children with three class rooms Powerful (USA and china alone) Normal Brats (most euros) and Weakling (most of the eastern world) now look at these three which whould you like to be.

This makes me so glad that Bush totally ignored the UN. Anyone want to hazard a guess at which Security Council member Saddam influenced with his bribes?
You see a news item and assume it is fact and everything else surrounding it gives credence to your arguments?

ac·cu·sa·tion

1. allegation: a claim that somebody has done something illegal, wrong, or undesirable

From the article:

France urged caution Thursday in dealing with a U.S. inspector’s allegations it was involved in corruption at the U.N. oil-for-food program in Iraq, while others singled out in the report rejected the charges as “far-fetched.”

More about Mr. Duelfer:

A clutching at straws

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/25569.html

Charles Duelfer, the CIA official who led the hunt for weapons of mass destruction, concluded that Saddam had no stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons and had failed to rebuild any part of his depleted nuclear programme at the time of the invasion. By rights, these findings should be devastating for George W Bush and Tony Blair, who went to war on the basis of intelligence demonstrating that Saddam possessed WMD that could be readily deployed.

The political consequences of invading Iraq for a reason that has, to all intents and purposes, been dismantled dog Mr Bush on the US presidential election trail and Mr Blair in Africa. In the prime minister's case, they will continue to do so up to and probably beyond next year's general election. That Mr Duelfer's findings do not deliver the killer blow is because we have grown accustomed to the knowledge that the case for war was, at best, flimsy. Familiarity can breed understandable contempt.

It was to limit the damage, anticipated as it had been, that the White House and Downing Street seized on the report's ifs, buts and imponderables to seek a refashioned justification for military action. The sound that echoed from Washington to Addis Ababa via Baghdad last night was of straws being clutched. Mr Duelfer's assertions that Saddam had never abandoned his intention to use WMD and that he apparently had an aggressive strategy to end sanctions were enough for Mr Bush and Mr Blair to assert yet again that they had been right. In the Iraqi capital, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, said Mr Duelfer's assertions demonstrated that, had Iraq been left to Saddam, he would have built up his capabilities and posed a greater threat to peace and stability.

How, exactly, when, as the report makes clear, international sanctions were working by stopping Saddam getting his hands on the materials to make weapons? What would have prevented them working in the future? On the campaign hustings, Mr Bush said yesterday there was a real risk in the post-9/11 world that Saddam would have passed weapons or information to terrorist networks. How, exactly, when Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, had acknowledged there was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, the network responsible for the attacks on America?

If this was a war waged to cleanse Iraq of a threat, why had the United States been so ill-prepared for the aftermath of the invasion? If the threat had existed, that was when the real job would have been done. Instead, according to Paul Bremer, the former proconsul in Iraq, there was no planning for the peace – a major blunder. Paradoxically, for different reasons, the threat has become real and Iraq has become a fulcrum for militancy and terror. Mr Bush and Mr Blair say they did not lie about WMD. But they could not be sure what they were telling us was the truth. When a president or prime minister takes a country to war they must be certain their decision is right and based on sound information. Trusting the information is not a lie is not enough. Mr Duelfer's is but the latest report to show how wrong Mr Bush and Mr Blair were.

The Iraq Survey Group report, published in Washington last night, lived up to its billing as definitive on the one crucial point at issue: Saddam Hussein's weapons programme. He did not have one. Charles Duelfer, the CIA official who led the hunt for weapons of mass destruction, concluded that Saddam had no stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons and had failed to rebuild any part of his depleted nuclear programme at the time of the invasion. By rights, these findings should be devastating for George W Bush and Tony Blair, who went to war on the basis of intelligence demonstrating that Saddam possessed WMD that could be readily deployed.

The political consequences of invading Iraq for a reason that has, to all intents and purposes, been dismantled dog Mr Bush on the US presidential election trail and Mr Blair in Africa. In the prime minister's case, they will continue to do so up to and probably beyond next year's general election. That Mr Duelfer's findings do not deliver the killer blow is because we have grown accustomed to the knowledge that the case for war was, at best, flimsy. Familiarity can breed understandable contempt.

Torpedeos at the ready sir!!

Fire at will ensign!!

Another direct hit!!

Finally this is up.

Saddam played the UN like a puppet and won. Now that this report is out that Saddam bribed France and Germany and Russia in exchange for Illegal WMD material (france), Roland Missile Parts (France), Jet Parts, Etc Etc Etc!

Also stated that when the sanctions were lifted, Saddam would've RESTARTED his WMD research and developement.
This report is only an accusation and nothing has been proven, Just like Iraq was accussed of having WMD and guess what? WRONG answer.

So why don't you wait to see if these allegations are proved either true or false before tripping all over yourself?

Obviously they were not working. If they were working then why was he getting these things, all forbidden by the way, from France, Germany and Russia in VIOLATION of UN Sanctions?

Face it, sanctions were NOT working at all because Saddam Hussein bribed the UN through the Oil for Food. It is now confirmed thanks to this report.
NOTHING has been confirmed, except that Iraq had ZERO WMD. The rest is unproven.

Iraq had no WMDs, U.S. arms inspector confirms

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041006.wweap1006/BNPrint/International/

Mr. Duelfer's team found no written plans by Mr. Hussein's regime to pursue banned weapons if UN sanctions were lifted. Instead, the inspectors based their findings that Mr. Hussein hoped to reconstitute his programs on interviews with Mr. Hussein after his capture, as well as talks with other top Iraqi officials.


Bush and Blair,
Sitting in a tree,
Nuked by their own,
W M D

NOTHING has been confirmed, except that Iraq had ZERO WMD. The rest is unproven.

Bush and Blair,
Sitting in a tree,
Nuked by their own,
W M D
Wow, pretty impressive post you have there CH.
Hate to say this, but the ZERO WMD claim hasn't been proven. I know Im going to get slammed on this, however you can't prove a negative. All you can prove is that you haven't found them, and report that in all likelyhood they weren't there.

I personally believe he had no WMD's left by the start of the US invasion.

However, the report really is an opinion piece, based on the best available intelligence and probably very true, but still in opinion piece.

For 13 years Saddam bypassed the sanctions against him. Members of the UN kept saying that the sanctions would work. Well, they were not enforced and some countries were actually helping Saddam get away with it. France fought hard for Saddam and the sanctions. Now we see why. The UN is a joke and when this investigation is finished, it just might be too. Hopefully so.So, the UN is a joke for working on women's right across the globe? The UN is a joke for starting programs like UNICEF? The UN is joke helping third world countries? The UN is a joke for helping keep the peace countless times? That far outweighs the bad. I know that alot of people *cough*Republicans*cough* who hate on the UN are just sore that they disagreed on the war. I hope you realize one day that the UN is one of the best things that ever happened to the world.

So, the UN is a joke for working on women's right across the globe? The UN is a joke for starting programs like UNICEF? The UN is joke helping third world countries? The UN is a joke for helping keep the peace countless times? That far outweighs the bad. I know that alot of people *cough*Republicans*cough* who hate on the UN are just sore that they disagreed on the war. I hope you realize one day that the UN is one of the best things that ever happened to the world.
So are you saying that because of all the good it does, the bad things should be overlooked and forgiven?

What about that evil corporation who runs sweatshops, outsource jobs overseas, pollutes the environment yet donates billions every year for aids research around the globe? Should they be given a pass? Should someone be able to buy their way out of criminal charges by good deeds/money to charities?

Yes, it was an inopportune time...however, now we know why the UN was so against the action. Everyone was making money off Saddam. Saddam was providing support for terrorism. Have you not noticed that the suicide bombings in Israel have greatly diminished since he was removed? Saddam supported Hamas, who has stated that the US is a target now. That you guys would overlook the implications of this shows that the significane is lost on you.

The UN as a credible entity is finished. They can NEVER call for sanctions again as there is no guarantee that ranking members will not violate them at will. How many French and German made weapons systems have we found in Iraq? Both countries sold Saddam weapons in violation of the sanctions. Why we listen to them now is a mystery to me at this point. They are as guilty as Saddam in any action that Saddams support for Hamas and other groups resulted in.

They have NO right to criticize the US for ANYTHING we have done in Iraq. To do so would be incredibly hypocritical.

You're being hypocritical for complaining about France and Germany selling weapons to the Iraqis. Iran-Contra scandal, anyone? Iran is the true enemy.

So are you saying that because of all the good it does, the bad things should be overlooked and forgiven?

What about that evil corporation who runs sweatshops, outsource jobs overseas, pollutes the environment yet donates billions every year for aids research around the globe? Should they be given a pass? Should someone be able to buy their way out of criminal charges by good deeds/money to charities?

I'm not saying that the UN should be forgiven, just that all the good they have done far outweighs the bad. As for that second thing you said, I don't really know if that is relevant, but it presents an interesting moral question.

Blatant corruption that gets at the very argument that the UN had against the US going into Iraq and you choose to ignore it and or dismiss it as nothing. hmmmm

France, Germany and Russia.....the three countries so against the US going into Iraq were being bribed by Iraq to do just that. Now they have been caught and the sanctions they so wanted to continue were just a money bag for them. What did Chirac do with the $1.8 billion France received from Saddam?

Now is the time to disband the UN and denounce it for what it really is, a den of liars and criminals.
I seriously hope that dark idea never happens. OH NOES! WE DIDN'T GET UN APPROVAL OF OUR WAR! THREE COUNTRIES GOT BRIBED! BAD BAD BAD! UN MUST DIE! You should really learn of the countless lives changed by this organisation.

Wow, pretty impressive post you have there CH.
Hate to say this, but the ZERO WMD claim hasn't been proven. I know Im going to get slammed on this, however you can't prove a negative. All you can prove is that you haven't found them, and report that in all likelyhood they weren't there.

I personally believe he had no WMD's left by the start of the US invasion.

However, the report really is an opinion piece, based on the best available intelligence and probably very true, but still in opinion piece.
I can prove a negative. Bush is a negative and I am positive about that and the more truth about Iraq that surfaces, proves that Bush acted in a negative manner, which has had a negative impact upon Iraq and US relations with some of her closest allies.

It is time to cut the apron strings of the Bush heirarchy and hand the reigns over to Mr. Kerry before Mr. Bush is allowed to lead the US to more death and destruction in parts unknown.

I can prove a negative. Bush is a negative and I am positive about that and the more truth about Iraq that surfaces, proves that Bush acted in a negative manner, which has had a negative impact upon Iraq and US relations with some of her closest allies.

It is time to cut the apron strings of the Bush heirarchy and hand the reigns over to Mr. Kerry before Mr. Bush is allowed to lead the US to more death and destruction in parts unknown.
It's time to stop spouting rhetoric and post something requiring actual thought.

"I can prove a negative. Bush is a negative"

Ok, yea, that's proof. :rolleyes:

Here's a kicker.
I'm sure some of you noticed that the Bush Administration made an example of a shipment of aluminum pipes as parts for Saddam's alleged nuclear program. The only catch is, those aluminum pipes can't be used in a reactor. Oops.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Every government and likely every NGO has both accepted and paid bribes. NPR said the French are complaining about a number of American names that have been blacked out from the kickback list.

audio link: javascript:getMedia('ATC',%20'07-Oct-2004',%20'10',%20'WM,RM');

It's time to stop spouting rhetoric and post something requiring actual thought.

"I can prove a negative. Bush is a negative"

Ok, yea, that's proof. :rolleyes:
If anyone is spouting rhetoric, that would be you? I have at least posted links to credible news sources and yet you live in denial asking me to prove a negative, and insisting that WMD may actually exist, even though 4 high profile inspectors have stated that they do NOT exist.

There was no IMMINENT threat to the US by Iraq. That is a pile of horse manure and the longer the game goes on, the higher the pile.

Its great how the fact that iraq traded with france before the gulf war brings up all of these allegations. Weapons systems transportation has been halted since 1991, what is found there is old. Food for oil, bribes happen all the time, it doesn't mean anything even happens with them. Saddam spent the money on weapons instead of food, so for good intentions we immolate these nations. So great.

If anyone is spouting rhetoric, that would be you? I have at least posted links to credible news sources and yet you live in denial asking me to prove a negative, and insisting that WMD may actually exist, even though 4 high profile inspectors have stated that they do NOT exist.

There was no IMMINENT threat to the US by Iraq. That is a pile of horse manure and the longer the game goes on, the higher the pile.
I didn't think we were talking about imminent threat. I agree that Saddam posed no immediate threat. I agree Saddam posed no long term threat in and of himself. I do believe that he had the capacity to pass on WMD to terrorists.

Im not saying the Duelfer report was wrong, Im saying it was right. Im not saying Saddam had WMD immediately prior to the invasion, Im saying he didn't.

What I am saying, is that proving WMDs didn't exist beyond any doubt is an impossibility. You simply can't prove a negative. It's like proving God doesn't exist. It can't be done. It can be argued either way, evidence of either side can be pointed out, but after it's all said and done, it's only someone's opinion that God, or the WMDs do not exist.

I didn't think we were talking about imminent threat. I agree that Saddam posed no immediate threat. I agree Saddam posed no long term threat in and of himself. I do believe that he had the capacity to pass on WMD to terrorists.

And the UN inspectors should have been allowed to keep searching for WMD. If they found out that there was WMD capability coming back in iraq, then the world would have been ready to stop it. If Iraq kicked out the inspectors again, world would have intervened(The world was getting ready to attack anyways, but american unilateralism turned off many potential helpers). One way or another, bush fucked up by attacking when he did, even if there is a good argument of whether or not he should have at all.

I didn't think we were talking about imminent threat. I agree that Saddam posed no immediate threat. I agree Saddam posed no long term threat in and of himself. I do believe that he had the capacity to pass on WMD to terrorists.

Im not saying the Duelfer report was wrong, Im saying it was right. Im not saying Saddam had WMD immediately prior to the invasion, Im saying he didn't.

What I am saying, is that proving WMDs didn't exist beyond any doubt is an impossibility. You simply can't prove a negative. It's like proving God doesn't exist. It can't be done. It can be argued either way, evidence of either side can be pointed out, but after it's all said and done, it's only someone's opinion that God, or the WMDs do not exist.
Then what the hell business did the US have in Iraq then?

When Bush delivered his address to the US population, he used the word "threat" four times, and he also stated:

We will meet that threat now with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of firefighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

An obvious attempt to tie the invasion of Iraq to the tragedy of 9/11.

And the UN inspectors should have been allowed to keep searching for WMD. If they found out that there was WMD capability coming back in iraq, then the world would have been ready to stop it. If Iraq kicked out the inspectors again, world would have intervened(The world was getting ready to attack anyways, but american unilateralism turned off many potential helpers). One way or another, bush fucked up by attacking when he did, even if there is a good argument of whether or not he should have at all.
BINGO!!! The correct answer in this whole sordid affair.
I have asked this question (not allowing the inspectors to continue) many times on these boards and no one has been able to give a competent answer that would justify an immediate attack.

I'm not saying that the UN should be forgiven, just that all the good they have done far outweighs the bad. As for that second thing you said, I don't really know if that is relevant, but it presents an interesting moral question.

I'm sure the Katangans they massacred in the early 60's would beg to differ, were they alive today.

The names of American companies and individuals who may have been involved in oil deals weren’t released because of U.S. privacy laws, the report said.

And this report has any credibility, why? Why should the world trust a biased report such as this? Besides, there is no mention of Germany in this report as far as I can see. Which weapons systems from Germany are you referring to that cost Germany credibility? What makes you think that our government could restrict firms (such as Siemens) from exporting their stuff to Iraq? What makes you think that firms that dealt with Iraq, did so from their respective home countries? It is of course no surprise, that the US excempts itself from revealing the dirty laundry in it's own basket. Credibility of this report = void, because it accuses people based on biased "facts" without checking with them or their governments. If anything, this is yet another diplomatic scandal revealing the arrogance of the US and to divert attention from the real issues: the US are a bully and have no diplomatic or moral highground.

The Bush Administraition has led to an all time high in anti-Americanism globally.
Remind me to send him flowers and a thank you card.

So, the UN is a joke for working on women's right across the globe? The UN is a joke for starting programs like UNICEF? The UN is joke helping third world countries? The UN is a joke for helping keep the peace countless times? That far outweighs the bad. I know that alot of people *cough*Republicans*cough* who hate on the UN are just sore that they disagreed on the war. I hope you realize one day that the UN is one of the best things that ever happened to the world.

Name ONE place where the UN has kept the peace. Just one. The UN is powerless. It is just a tea party. It cannot change anything within ANY country. Only the people of any country can effect change.

The UN passes resolutions but cannot back them up.

Name ONE place where the UN has kept the peace. Just one. The UN is powerless. It is just a tea party. It cannot change anything within ANY country. Only the people of any country can effect change.

The UN passes resolutions but cannot back them up.
Check out the UN website. It lists all current peacekeeping missions.

That article Biff posted isn't nearly as damning as he purports it is. Here's the current status of the Food For Oil investigation--some people in the US claim that Hussein was bribing officials of the UN to circumvent the sanctions. Where's their proof? Well, right now, all they have are claims, oh and as Josh Marshall of the Washington Monthly (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_03.php#003616) reports, some documents provided by Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, documents they won't let anyone see.

So while it is indeed possible that Hussein was trying to circumvent the UN sanctions, it's hardly the open and shut case that Biff wishes it was.

Actually the information from this report came from sources OTHER than Mr. Chalabi. It is NOT about WMD's specificly, it was about the oil for food program and how Saddam was benefitting from it. That you would dismiss the evidence that France was being bribed to support Saddam in the Security Council is not surprising to me really. You guys want to make everything regarding Iraq come down to WMD's and the whole affair is much broader than that. Grabbing an opinion piece does not make your point more valid, you can do better than that.

You're being hypocritical for complaining about France and Germany selling weapons to the Iraqis. Iran-Contra scandal, anyone? Iran is the true enemy.

Iran-Contra was a brilliant stroke. We sold the Iranians advanced weapons systems at top dollar prices, but no spare parts. Within 6 months not one of those systems was still operational. To this day Iran is trying to get the parts they need to fly their F-14's. Taking the money they paid, we bought small arms on the open market and supplied a rebel group that wanted to bring democracy to their country. They did so and their country is much better off today because of it. So what you see as some bad thing turned out pretty good. Swindle Iran to crate stability somewhere else.

Its great how the fact that iraq traded with france before the gulf war brings up all of these allegations. Weapons systems transportation has been halted since 1991, what is found there is old. Food for oil, bribes happen all the time, it doesn't mean anything even happens with them. Saddam spent the money on weapons instead of food, so for good intentions we immolate these nations. So great.

Good intentions? I think you completely missed the scope of this. France, Germany, Russia and to some extent China went AROUND the sanctions and did business with Saddam right up until he was overthrown.

Everyone was calling for the US to let the sanctions work. Yet these same parties were violating them KNOWING they were not working. That France ACTIVELY supported Saddam on the Security Council is one thing, but now that we know that Saddam was PAYING them to do so makes their credibility and their argument nonexistant at best. Russia sold Saddam advanced anti-tank missles and night vision equipment in direct violation of the sanctions. How do we know this? We have captured this equipment in Iraq. How did it get there? Do you think the Iraqi's stole it? No, the sanctions were not working. France was fighting to have them removed. Saddam wanted to renew his WMD programs after the sanctions were removed, he has said this. How do you "renew" something that you did not have once before?

He had a WMD program once and the knowledge and expertise was still there to build another one.

American firms also circumvented the sanctions. You want to make it appear as if the US are the angel in this matter. Besides, the report does not mention Germany anywhere. What are you talking about when you include Germany in your list of "sanction violators"?

American firms also circumvented the sanctions. You want to make it appear as if the US are the angel in this matter. Besides, the report does not mention Germany anywhere. What are you talking about when you include Germany in your list of "sanction violators"?

Yes, US corporations did....and you can bet they will face a high punishment for it. The difference is that France and the other countries were doing it at the governmental level. THATS the difference here.

Germany sold Saddam weapons and expertise too. Plus they signed lucrative oil contracts with Saddam as well...all in violation of the sanctions. It is fast becoming clear WHY they were fighting so hard to keep the US out of Iraq. Those contracts are now no longer valid.

Yes, US corporations did....and you can bet they will face a high punishment for it. The difference is that France and the other countries were doing it at the governmental level. THATS the difference here.

Germany sold Saddam weapons and expertise too. Plus they signed lucrative oil contracts with Saddam as well...all in violation of the sanctions. It is fast becoming clear WHY they were fighting so hard to keep the US out of Iraq. Those contracts are now no longer valid.
Proof? The report mentions a lot of countries, but not Germany. Do you think they'd omit Germany if German firms/politicians were involved in such corruption? Back up your claim please.

Besdies this, I do not think that the civilian populations of all these countries cared what deals were going on behind the scenes or not. We demanded solid proof that this war was necessary and a UN resolution specifically allowing it. Nothing of the sort happened, so we continue to oppose the illegal occupation of Iraq.

Proof? The report mentions a lot of countries, but not Germany. Do you think they'd omit Germany if German firms/politicians were involved in such corruption? Back up your claim please.

Besdies this, I do not think that the civilian populations of all these countries cared what deals were going on behind the scenes or not. We demanded solid proof that this war was necessary and a UN resolution specifically allowing it. Nothing of the sort happened, so we continue to oppose the illegal occupation of Iraq.

How about this BBC story from 2002.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2591351.stm

Or this one?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2584975.stm

The latest revelations come after a Taz article earlier in the week, which said that more than 80 German companies were listed in the Iraqi declaration - several of which were still involved in Iraq last year.


This was going on for a LONG time...and the sanctions went in place in 1991. Not caring what "back-door" deals were going on is one thing, but when those deals negate the very sanctions that these countries kept calling for more time to work makes the argument for the sanctions moot, does it not?

Iran-Contra was a brilliant stroke.

A brilliant stroke? The US double-crosses her ALLY Iraq by supplying arms to Iran, and then taking the money from those sales and supplying drug runners in Nicaragua.

Yup really "brilliant"!!!

You're being hypocritical for complaining about France and Germany selling weapons to the Iraqis. Iran-Contra scandal, anyone? Iran is the true enemy.
Yes he is a hypocrit. But the US is the real enemy.

A brilliant stroke? The US double-crosses her ALLY Iraq by supplying arms to Iran, and then taking the money from those sales and supplying drug runners in Nicaragua.

Yup really "brilliant"!!!
And to think people like Kybernetia practicly worship the US as an ally.

Actually the information from this report came from sources OTHER than Mr. Chalabi. It is NOT about WMD's specificly, it was about the oil for food program and how Saddam was benefitting from it. That you would dismiss the evidence that France was being bribed to support Saddam in the Security Council is not surprising to me really. You guys want to make everything regarding Iraq come down to WMD's and the whole affair is much broader than that. Grabbing an opinion piece does not make your point more valid, you can do better than that.
You missed my point completely--not surprising, Biff, but you did. I'm not saying that there's no validity to the charges of scandal in the oil for food program. Considering the amount of money involved, I'd be surprised if there weren't some improprieties.

What I'm saying is that your case isn't as open and shut as you'd like to believe it is. So far, the only documented proof of this scandal comes from documents currently in the hands of the INC, and they're lacking more than a little credinility. There is an investigation underway headed by former chairman of the Fed Paul Volker, but that won't be done until the middle of next year. My guess, based solely on a lifetime of watching government type scandals, is that there will be some truth to the scandal, but it will neither be as far-reaching or as dastardly as you're making it out to be. And it certainly won't be enough to justify, after the fact, this ruinous invasion and occupation.

You missed my point completely--not surprising, Biff, but you did. I'm not saying that there's no validity to the charges of scandal in the oil for food program. Considering the amount of money involved, I'd be surprised if there weren't some improprieties.

What I'm saying is that your case isn't as open and shut as you'd like to believe it is. So far, the only documented proof of this scandal comes from documents currently in the hands of the INC, and they're lacking more than a little credinility. There is an investigation underway headed by former chairman of the Fed Paul Volker, but that won't be done until the middle of next year. My guess, based solely on a lifetime of watching government type scandals, is that there will be some truth to the scandal, but it will neither be as far-reaching or as dastardly as you're making it out to be. And it certainly won't be enough to justify, after the fact, this ruinous invasion and occupation.

Well, since these allegations go back to 2002....and from sources other than the INC I think there is more to them than even I might think.

A brilliant stroke? The US double-crosses her ALLY Iraq by supplying arms to Iran, and then taking the money from those sales and supplying drug runners in Nicaragua.

Yup really "brilliant"!!!

Iraq was not an ALLY in the 80's, it was the lesser of two evils. You seem to think that Saddam and the US were really good buddies....nothing was further from the truth. We USED Saddam as a surrogate to fight the Iranians. much like the Arabs use the Palestinians to fight Israel.

Those "drug runners" now have freedom and a democratically elected government. The Cuban and Soviet advisors are long gone.....

However, none of that has ANYTHING to do with this scandal that if all goes well, will utterly destroy the UN. One can only hope. ;)

Well, since these allegations go back to 2002....and from sources other than the INC I think there is more to them than even I might think.
Well, then you need to link to something other than that MSNBC article, because they only say the Duelfer report makes the accusations. They don't note where those accusations spring from so that they would make it into the Duelfer repost. So where do they come from originally? Can you tell me that?

Well, then you need to link to something other than that MSNBC article, because they only say the Duelfer report makes the accusations. They don't note where those accusations spring from so that they would make it into the Duelfer repost. So where do they come from originally? Can you tell me that?

Well, I did post these BBC articles from 2002.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2591351.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2584975.stm

They state that it came from Iraq's report to the UN....so Saddam said it I guess.

I thought this line was appropriate....

These companies assisted atomic, biological and chemical weapons development as well as aiding Iraq's missile and conventional arms programmes, according to Taz.

Since there were so many countries voting for and then violating the sanctions...they could not possibly work. Who is to say these same countries did not help in getting rid of the evidence of their involvement? Just not enough of it I guess.

Just curious Bif - but what is so sinister under the terms of the sanctions about the words "parts for missile systems".


After all - HE WAS ALLOWED TO HAVE MISSILES!!!!


The only criteria defined under the sanctions was the 150km max flight range for any in his possession.


So screaming about PARTS FOR SYSTEMS is pointless unless you can show that they were being used to build weapons in violation of the treaty. Now he DID voluntarily in 2002 disclose that his newest missile had exceeded the max range in a couple of tests when fired without payload. He argued that WITH payload they could not break the sanctions. The UN disagreed and he objected, but then agreed to dismantle them - which was underway when the war started.


Oh gosh - he had legal missile systems.... let's call THAT a scoop!

:rolleyes:

This was going on for a LONG time...and the sanctions went in place in 1991. Not caring what "back-door" deals were going on is one thing, but when those deals negate the very sanctions that these countries kept calling for more time to work makes the argument for the sanctions moot, does it not?

So - should we hang Dick Cheney up by the balls and call him a bungler too for all the times that the company he ran worked around US sanctions to trade with the enemy?

For this administration to point to this as some sort of political ammunition, they have to hang the VP out to dry for doing the same damn things.

Just curious Bif - but what is so sinister under the terms of the sanctions about the words "parts for missile systems".


After all - HE WAS ALLOWED TO HAVE MISSILES!!!!


The only criteria defined under the sanctions was the 150km max flight range for any in his possession.


So screaming about PARTS FOR SYSTEMS is pointless unless you can show that they were being used to build weapons in violation of the treaty. Now he DID voluntarily in 2002 disclose that his newest missile had exceeded the max range in a couple of tests when fired without payload. He argued that WITH payload they could not break the sanctions. The UN disagreed and he objected, but then agreed to dismantle them - which was underway when the war started.


Oh gosh - he had legal missile systems.... let's call THAT a scoop!

:rolleyes:


What was the purpose of the sanctions? It was to prevent him from rearming was it not? So when countries violate the mandate by the UN, one these same countries voted for, then what use are sanctions from the UN anyway?

That you pick on ONE item that was illegally (as defined by the UN) sold to Iraq, is not surprising. The Iraqi's bought MANY different weapons systems from these same countries. I always wondered where they were getting their mobile radar sets. We destroyed 1000's of them in the northern AND southern no-fly zones. Of course selling those to the Iraqi's was also a violation of the sanctions, but you choose to overlook that.

Now that the UN is seen for what it is.....you decry the US for bringing it to light. Is it any wonder why the French were fighting so hard against the US regarding Iraq?

However, none of that has ANYTHING to do with this scandal that if all goes well, will utterly destroy the UN. One can only hope. ;)

The lovely dichotomy of the arguments around the UN and this war:

1.) The UN was useless! We had to step in because it just kept making sanctions that never worked.
2.) Iraq had no WMD. (would that not mean that aparently the sanctions worked?)
3.) Violations of the sanctions was reason to go to war.
4.) UN sanctions are irrlevant (so why are they a relevant excuse for war?)

My head spins at the way some people use the sanctions to justify this administration's actions at the same time as they keep bashing it for being irrelevant, and blaming it for everything - despite that fact that apparently the actions of the UN worked from a disarmament perspective.

It is just so hypocritical on so many levels....

Okay better, Biff, but still nothing substantial. The second article, in particular, is very very short on detail. But I noticed something in the first article--the usage of "may have" as in "They too may have continued to supply Iraq after the embargo came into force, the paper alleges."

Also, in response to the earlier assertion that the UN sanctions couldn't have possibly worked if everyone was violating them, I think the complete and utter lack of WMD and WMD programs belies your statement.

The lovely dichotomy of the arguments around the UN and this war:

1.) The UN was useless! We had to step in because it just kept making sanctions that never worked.
2.) Iraq had no WMD. (would that not mean that aparently the sanctions worked?)
3.) Violations of the sanctions was reason to go to war.
4.) UN sanctions are irrlevant (so why are they a relevant excuse for war?)

My head spins at the way some people use the sanctions to justify this administration's actions at the same time as they keep bashing it for being irrelevant, and blaming it for everything - despite that fact that apparently the actions of the UN worked from a disarmament perspective.

It is just so hypocritical on so many levels....

No, what is striking is that countries that wanted to keep the sanctions in place because they were "working" were actively violating them. We probably knew all along that this was happening, but in order not to embarrass our "allies" we kept quiet about it.

With friends like these.....

What was the purpose of the sanctions? It was to prevent him from rearming was it not? So when countries violate the mandate by the UN, one these same countries voted for, then what use are sanctions from the UN anyway?

That you pick on ONE item that was illegally (as defined by the UN) sold to Iraq, is not surprising. The Iraqi's bought MANY different weapons systems from these same countries. I always wondered where they were getting their mobile radar sets. We destroyed 1000's of them in the northern AND southern no-fly zones. Of course selling those to the Iraqi's was also a violation of the sanctions, but you choose to overlook that.

Now that the UN is seen for what it is.....you decry the US for bringing it to light. Is it any wonder why the French were fighting so hard against the US regarding Iraq?


Iraq was not required to completely disarm. No country has ever been required that. Even after WWII Japan was allowed to re-arm, but in a defensive posture only.

Iraq was permitted to have the normal conventional military weapons systems for homeland defense that any other country has a right to. They were forced to abandon WMD, and limits were placed on it's ability to project force by restricting the range of their missile systems. That was the extent of what the sanction required.

The anti-aircraft missiles destroyed in the no-fly zones (which were never a part of UN sanctions by the way) were not technically illegal. It was just a part of a little undeclared war that kept going on. They were destroyed because they were threats to the US aircraft - not because they were illegal.

May I just add (sorry if this has been said already) the fact that the CIA, before the release of the WMD report scored out every American name in the bribe list.

No, what is striking is that countries that wanted to keep the sanctions in place because they were "working" were actively violating them. We probably knew all along that this was happening, but in order not to embarrass our "allies" we kept quiet about it.

With friends like these.....


Because no American companies would ever do anything like that.... :rolleyes:

Okay better, Biff, but still nothing substantial. The second article, in particular, is very very short on detail. But I noticed something in the first article--the usage of "may have" as in "They too may have continued to supply Iraq after the embargo came into force, the paper alleges."

Also, in response to the earlier assertion that the UN sanctions couldn't have possibly worked if everyone was violating them, I think the complete and utter lack of WMD and WMD programs belies your statement.

Ok, conspiracy theory.....

Saddam was getting assistance from countries in violation of the sanctions. We do know that German companies built his chemical defense bunkers and other structures. We know this because when they were found all the equipment was built in Germany and had german instruction manuals.

So....and yes, this IS a real stretch, but it IS possible....

Who is to say that France was NOT helping Saddam build a WMD program, then when the US started sabre rattling they removed the evidence. Afterall, they had months to do so. They DID assure Saddam that they would fight the US on the Security council and told him the US would not invade against the UN....afterall, we never had before.

Why do I think the French would do such a thing? Well, they were building a nuclear power plant for Saddam before the Israelis bombed it in 1981. Yes, my theory is way out there....but it IS possible.

May I just add (sorry if this has been said already) the fact that the CIA, before the release of the WMD report scored out every American name in the bribe list.

Yes, because of privacy laws and libel. Thank the "liberals" for that measure. I wish they would announce the names of them. I would immediately sell any mutual fund shares I have that invested in these companies. These guys should be fined heavily. The reason foreign companies were named is because they do not fall under the protection of those laws.

Because no American companies would ever do anything like that.... :rolleyes:

Oh, some did....and those who did will be dealt with as they indirectly supported those who we are fighting now. However, France and some other countries did this on the governmental level...not the business level. When it is part of national policy it is very different.

Ok, conspiracy theory.....

Saddam was getting assistance from countries in violation of the sanctions. We do know that German companies built his chemical defense bunkers and other structures. We know this because when they were found all the equipment was built in Germany and had german instruction manuals.

So....and yes, this IS a real stretch, but it IS possible....

Who is to say that France was NOT helping Saddam build a WMD program, then when the US started sabre rattling they removed the evidence. Afterall, they had months to do so. They DID assure Saddam that they would fight the US on the Security council and told him the US would not invade against the UN....afterall, we never had before.

Why do I think the French would do such a thing? Well, they were building a nuclear power plant for Saddam before the Israelis bombed it in 1981. Yes, my theory is way out there....but it IS possible.

And if Israel didn't blow up that Nuclear Reactor, we would've had a Nuclear Armed Iraq today. Thank God the Israelis blew it up.

And that is another reason to dispise the French.

Ok, conspiracy theory.....

Saddam was getting assistance from countries in violation of the sanctions. We do know that German companies built his chemical defense bunkers and other structures. We know this because when they were found all the equipment was built in Germany and had german instruction manuals.

So....and yes, this IS a real stretch, but it IS possible....

Who is to say that France was NOT helping Saddam build a WMD program, then when the US started sabre rattling they removed the evidence. Afterall, they had months to do so. They DID assure Saddam that they would fight the US on the Security council and told him the US would not invade against the UN....afterall, we never had before.

Why do I think the French would do such a thing? Well, they were building a nuclear power plant for Saddam before the Israelis bombed it in 1981. Yes, my theory is way out there....but it IS possible.
Possible what? France, Germany, China and Russia helping evil evil Iraq to attack the US? Dude, you need to take your medicine I think.

Anyway.... despite all the examples of companies everywhere doing things that violate various ordinances, sanctions, laws, and treaties that they are supposed to adhere to.....



....let's just be sure to remember that in this case it was all the UN's fault.



Just like it's all the Pentagon's fault that Haliburton continually screws them, the SEC's fault that Enron and Worldcom perpetrated fraud, the US government's fault that Bush's grandfather traded with the Nazi's, and the NYSE's fault in every instance of insider trading.

Because it is always the fault of he organization that provides oversight if anything happenes on their watch for not catching it before it happened.




Of course - using that exacting standard - we must also accept that 9-11 was George Bush's fault.


I know you love to bash the UN, and I agree that it is imperfect and there are reforms needed. But the extent to which some people point the finger at it as an entity without any recognition that it is a sum of it's faulty parts, and was created this way specifically so that it would have less teeth than needed because those that set it up wanted to ensure that they could wiggle exemptions from it for themselves - are just scapegoating it in my opinion.

Oh, some did....and those who did will be dealt with as they indirectly supported those who we are fighting now. However, France and some other countries did this on the governmental level...not the business level. When it is part of national policy it is very different.
So far there is no solid proof of these accusations. Without consulting with the governments of France, Russia, China, etc. their former government officials were accused of participating in heavy corruption around the oil-for-food program. Other than Ahmed Chalabi/Iyad Allawi (INC) the US do not have any other information. And both figures lack credibility due to their past criminal records and bias to "suck up to the US" to eventually become influential figures in Iraq. Chalabi has since been revealed as fraudulent. Allawi, a former terrorist and Baathist aswell as valuable CIA/MI6 asset, does not hold more credibility than Chalabi.

Ok, conspiracy theory.....

Saddam was getting assistance from countries in violation of the sanctions. We do know that German companies built his chemical defense bunkers and other structures. We know this because when they were found all the equipment was built in Germany and had german instruction manuals.

So....and yes, this IS a real stretch, but it IS possible....

Who is to say that France was NOT helping Saddam build a WMD program, then when the US started sabre rattling they removed the evidence. Afterall, they had months to do so. They DID assure Saddam that they would fight the US on the Security council and told him the US would not invade against the UN....afterall, we never had before.

Why do I think the French would do such a thing? Well, they were building a nuclear power plant for Saddam before the Israelis bombed it in 1981. Yes, my theory is way out there....but it IS possible.

That is just as likely as Bush attacking Iraq for Oil. We know both theories are bunk but it IS possible. :)

I love conspiracy theories, I just wonder why people actually BELIEVE them?

Possible what? France, Germany, China and Russia helping evil evil Iraq to attack the US? Dude, you need to take your medicine I think.

Actually, it is actually FACT now that France was GIVING Saddam ILLEGAL WMD material! Fact that Illegal Weapons systems were being sold to Saddam Hussein by the French, Your Precious Germany, and the Russians. It is a Fact that Saddam was NOT hurt by the sanctions but Benefitted from them thanks to Bribing.

The UN was Saddam's puppet but the UN did not stop us from taking on Saddam and ousting him from power!

Down with the UN!

So far there is no solid proof of these accusations. Without consulting with the governments of France, Russia, China, etc. their former government officials were accused of participating in heavy corruption around the oil-for-food program. Other than Ahmed Chalabi/Iyad Allawi (INC) the US do not have any other information. And both figures lack credibility due to their past criminal records and bias to "suck up to the US" to eventually become influential figures in Iraq. Chalabi has since been revealed as fraudulent. Allawi, a former terrorist and Baathist aswell as valuable CIA/MI6 asset, does not hold more credibility than Chalabi.

HAHA!! Oh Gigatron you are way to much! There is solid proof now that this report is out! You CAN NOT deny it this time. The facts are in and France, Germany, and Russia have been found out and have been found Guilty of violating UN Sanctions on Iraq.

Actually, it is actually FACT now that France was GIVING Saddam ILLEGAL WMD material! Fact that Illegal Weapons systems were being sold to Saddam Hussein by the French, Your Precious Germany, and the Russians. It is a Fact that Saddam was NOT hurt by the sanctions but Benefitted from them thanks to Bribing.

The UN was Saddam's puppet but the UN did not stop us from taking on Saddam and ousting him from power!

Down with the UN!
Fact? Where? This report based on information from the likes of Chalabi and Allawi? Give me a break. They have more interest to help the US find a justification and discrediting the UN and "peace loving" governments than bringing out the truth.

HAHA!! Oh Gigatron you are way to much! There is solid proof now that this report is out! You CAN NOT deny it this time. The facts are in and France, Germany, and Russia have been found out and have been found Guilty of violating UN Sanctions on Iraq.
Fact is, Germany is not mentioned in this news article. What did Germany do? Which illegal weapons systems?

Fact? Where? This report based on information from the likes of Chalabi and Allawi? Give me a break. They have more interest to help the US find a justification and discrediting the UN and "peace loving" governments than bringing out the truth.

Dude, WE"VE FOUND THE MATERIAL!!!! All of it labeled from France, Germany, or Russia. That is solid Proof of what you did.

Dude, WE"VE FOUND THE MATERIAL!!!! All of it labeled from France, Germany, or Russia. That is solid Proof of what you did.
WHERE? Photos? Reports? Anything?

Fact is, Germany is not mentioned in this news article. What did Germany do? Which illegal weapons systems?

Actually you are. I have to find the report though and when I do, I will point it out to you.

Oh, some did....and those who did will be dealt with as they indirectly supported those who we are fighting now. However, France and some other countries did this on the governmental level...not the business level. When it is part of national policy it is very different.


And your proof of this governmental involvement is.... ?


As mentioned - Haliburton used loopholes in existing laws to trade with enemies for decades. It was well known, it was winked at, and no new laws were ever passed to put a stop to it. Indeed, still the loopholes exist to allow them to continue to do so.


Is this not a form of policy complicity at your own governmental level?


I'm not defending actions here Bif, just pointing out that this argument is hypocritical from the perspective of US actions. Governments serving their corporate interests is not exactly a localized problem in the world and if you want to point at others and scream at least be honest and point at Washington too.

WHERE? Photos? Reports? Anything?

Gigatron, you have just shown that you do not follow the news as closely as some people do.

As soon as I find the report, I will show you what Germany was doing.

Actually you are. I have to find the report though and when I do, I will point it out to you.
Ok. If you do, please make sure you include the source where the information was received from. If it's from the INC/Chalabi/Allawi, then you can stick this info where the sun does not shine.

And your proof of this governmental involvement is.... ?


As mentioned - Haliburton used loopholes in existing laws to trade with enemies for decades. It was well known, it was winked at, and no new laws were ever passed to put a stop to it. Indeed, still the loopholes exist to allow them to continue to do so.


Is this not a form of policy complicity at your own governmental level?


I'm not defending actions here Bif, just pointing out that this argument is hypocritical from the perspective of US actions. Governments serving their corporate interests is not exactly a localized problem in the world and if you want to point at others and scream at least be honest and point at Washington too.

France's actions are proof enough. Assuring Saddam that they would block the US on the security council....only the government could do that. Fighting to maintain the sanctions....only the government could do that. Face it, France is looking really bad on this one. I think there is STILL more that will come out about this.

Yes, Haliburton is also a bad example. They should not be allowed to bid on government contracts again, if I had that power, they would not be.

Oddly enough, FOX news reported about this about 6 weeks ago, but no other news source I could find did or would. They also reported that Koffi Annan and his son were benefitting greatly from the oil-for-food program. Wait till the other sources start picking up on that one in earnest.

Saddam divided the security council using bribes and oil....it worked.

Ok. If you do, please make sure you include the source where the information was received from. If it's from the INC/Chalabi/Allawi, then you can stick this info where the sun does not shine.

Oddly enough the BBC articles relied on a German newspaper as the source....the Tageszeitung (TAZ). I have no idea where it is located though.

Yes, Haliburton is also a bad example. They should not be allowed to bid on government contracts again, if I had that power, they would not be.

What about no-bid contracts?

Ok. If you do, please make sure you include the source where the information was received from. If it's from the INC/Chalabi/Allawi, then you can stick this info where the sun does not shine.

Oh don't worry Gigatron! I shall include the source!

What about no-bid contracts?

Especially those!!! That is one thing I do despise about the whole thing....

Our own German newspapers are invalid sources if they get their info from Allawi/Chalabi/INC. The media has already made the mistake of quoting false information from each other to push a nation into war (US).

HAHA!! Oh Gigatron you are way to much! There is solid proof now that this report is out! You CAN NOT deny it this time. The facts are in and France, Germany, and Russia have been found out and have been found Guilty of violating UN Sanctions on Iraq.
Are you (and Biff) aware that the report also named several AMERICAN companies and individuals, along side the F, G & R, as also being in violation of the resolutions, but US privacy laws forbids naming them, so they're been blacked out of the report offered to the press?
Just wondering.

Also wondering if you know the report does not say if any attempt was made to verify the accusations, and notes that some vouchers were issued legitimately.

Our own German newspapers are invalid sources if they get their info from Allawi/Chalabi/INC. The media has already made the mistake of quoting false information from each other to push a nation into war (US).

Actually the articles say the information came from the Iraqi report to the UN. So I guess you could say it came from Saddam himself.....pretty damning evidence really.

How about this one?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2542739.stm

Or this gem...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2245709.stm

Chirac said.... "I don't need to tell you that I condemn the regime in Iraq, naturally, for all the reasons we know." Yet he fought hard to keep Saddam in power because he was paid off.

Are you (and Biff) aware that the report also named several AMERICAN companies and individuals, along side the F, G & R, as also being in violation of the resolutions, but US privacy laws forbids naming them, so they're been blacked out of the report offered to the press?
Just wondering.

Also wondering if you know the report does not say if any attempt was made to verify the accusations, and notes that some vouchers were issued legitimately.

Out of curiosity, would that prohibit the press in other countries from publishing it? And if so, why does US privacy law supercede their own privacy law? I'm not a huge expert on privacy statutes or their international application, so I'm interested in knowing.

Are you (and Biff) aware that the report also named several AMERICAN companies and individuals, along side the F, G & R, as also being in violation of the resolutions, but US privacy laws forbids naming them, so they're been blacked out of the report offered to the press?
Just wondering.

Also wondering if you know the report does not say if any attempt was made to verify the accusations, and notes that some vouchers were issued legitimately.

Absolutely I am aware that some US companies are in violation and I have already stated my opinion of those scumbags. They were blacked out because although they are listed, releasing the names before the investigation is complete "can" alert them that they are under investigation and you might here the paper shredders running now. Also, if a company is so named and later turns out to be not guilty can have legal repurcussions as well.

Foreign companies are not protected by this US law and US companies are not protected by such laws in other countries.

Actually the articles say the information came from the Iraqi report to the UN. So I guess you could say it came from Saddam himself.....pretty damning evidence really.

How about this one?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2542739.stm

Or this gem...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2245709.stm

Chirac said.... "I don't need to tell you that I condemn the regime in Iraq, naturally, for all the reasons we know." Yet he fought hard to keep Saddam in power because he was paid off.

The Yugoslav Government blames the illegal trade on a few corrupt individuals and imprecise laws that left loopholes.

and

Mr Chirac told the New York Times that unilateral action by the United States against Iraq would be "extraordinarily dangerous".

He said there must be indisputable proof about the existence in Iraq of banned weapons of mass destruction.

But if one country claimed the right to take unilateral action, he said, others would follow.

"What would you say in the entirely hypothetical event that China wanted to take pre-emptive action against Taiwan, saying that Taiwan was a threat to it? Or what if India decided to take preventive action against Pakistan, or vice versa?" he asked.

"I don't need to tell you that I condemn the regime in Iraq, naturally, for all the reasons we know," he continued.

"But a few principles and a little order are needed to run the affairs of the world."

Just to quote the entire thing, not out of context like you did.

Out of curiosity, would that prohibit the press in other countries from publishing it? And if so, why does US privacy law supercede their own privacy law? I'm not a huge expert on privacy statutes or their international application, so I'm interested in knowing.

No, foreign newspapers could name them. I wish they would....

No, foreign newspapers could name them. I wish they would....
It's a US report. If foreign newspapers want to name the American companies, they'd have to find out who they are first. This will be hard to do with sections of the report being blackened out.

It's a US report. If foreign newspapers want to name the American companies, they'd have to find out who they are first. This will be hard to do with sections of the report being blackened out.

No, it is a US investigation into Iraqi documents. The UN REFUSES to turn over it's documents. I wonder why?

At any rate I wish we would learn which US companies are involved. Do you see the differences here? I WANT to get to the bottom of this and punish ALL who were involved. You state that there is no information that German companies were involved or that there was official government violations of the sanctions by the French. Is it no wonder that the US is becoming more and more sceptical regarding our friends and "allies?"

No, it is a US investigation into Iraqi documents. The UN REFUSES to turn over it's documents. I wonder why?

At any rate I wish we would learn which US companies are involved. Do you see the differences here? I WANT to get to the bottom of this and punish ALL who were involved. You state that there is no information that German companies were involved or that there was official government violations of the sanctions by the French. Is it no wonder that the US is becoming more and more sceptical regarding our friends and "allies?"

I want to find that out too. But the key argument that I think you're missing is that our government (Democrat and Republican alike) has been aiding and abetting Hussein as well, even if only through lax laws. And additionally, the current adminstration has a much closer tie to those companies that casts serious doubt on the objectivity that they are bringing to the table. Yet you are attempting to indirectly malign Kerry by saying he will leave our decisions in the hands of corrupt people (which isn't true, incidentally) while ignoring the fact that the decisions are ALREADY in the hands of corrupt people.

If you just like to rail against the UN, fine. But everyone should realize that doing it in an attempt to undermine Kerry makes no sense.

Addtionally, the fact that we're NOW choosing to call out Saddam Hussein isn't laudable for us. It's terrible. And trying to criticize others just because it is politically expedient and the American public knows almost nothing about our history of support for Hussein borders on criminal, in my mind.

I want to find that out too. But the key argument that I think you're missing is that our government (Democrat and Republican alike) has been aiding and abetting Hussein as well, even if only through lax laws. And additionally, the current adminstration has a much closer tie to those companies that casts serious doubt on the objectivity that they are bringing to the table. Yet you are attempting to indirectly malign Kerry by saying he will leave our decisions in the hands of corrupt people (which isn't true, incidentally) while ignoring the fact that the decisions are ALREADY in the hands of corrupt people.

If you just like to rail against the UN, fine. But everyone should realize that doing it in an attempt to undermine Kerry makes no sense.

I have not mentioned Kerry once in this thread....this is a thread about the UN and it's involvement in the oil for food program scandal. If I am not mistaken, the US was against that program as it was obvious that it was ripe for abuse. I could be wrong on that though.

I have not mentioned Kerry once in this thread....this is a thread about the UN and it's involvement in the oil for food program scandal.

But you act as if the UN is separate and distinct from the US. You may not intend to be doing so, but it is certainly there by implication...that our country is above those criticisms. It isn't. Not even close.

But you act as if the UN is separate and distinct from the US. You may not intend to be doing so, but it is certainly there by implication...that our country is above those criticisms. It isn't. Not even close.

The UN IS seperate and disticnt from the US. The US is but ONE member of the organization. It does not control it. That a number of countries vote for sanctions and then, on an OFFICIAL level violate them, all the while purporting to uphold them with resolution after resolution, all the while knowing that nothing will come of them does not bother you is beyond me.

The UN IS seperate and disticnt from the US. The US is but ONE member of the organization. It does not control it. That a number of countries vote for sanctions and then, on an OFFICIAL level violate them, all the while purporting to uphold them with resolution after resolution, all the while knowing that nothing will come of them does not bother you is beyond me.
The sanctions did prevent Hussein from reactivating his WMD programme. So they worked. Makes me wonder how "bad" the corruption was if he was disarmed, had no WMD and would only have been able to rearm if sanctions had been dropped?

The sanctions did prevent Hussein from reactivating his WMD programme. So they worked. Makes me wonder how "bad" the corruption was if he was disarmed, had no WMD and would only have been able to rearm if sanctions had been dropped?

Yes, and wasn't it the French who were calling for them to be lifted? The same people who were helping Saddam build a nuclear power plant in 1981?

It looks more and more like Saddam bought the French off...so they would help get the sanctions lifted so he could indeed rearm with his WMD's.

The UN IS seperate and disticnt from the US. The US is but ONE member of the organization. It does not control it. That a number of countries vote for sanctions and then, on an OFFICIAL level violate them, all the while purporting to uphold them with resolution after resolution, all the while knowing that nothing will come of them does not bother you is beyond me.

You malign the entire institution of the UN based on the actions of some of its members. My point is that to do that, you must also level the same criticisms at the US, because 1. we are a member, and 2. we engage in the same practices that you point to as being oh-so-heinous (both inside the UN and external to the UN).

People who live in glass houses...

Yes, and wasn't it the French who were calling for them to be lifted? The same people who were helping Saddam build a nuclear power plant in 1981?

It looks more and more like Saddam bought the French off...so they would help get the sanctions lifted so he could indeed rearm with his WMD's.
Building a nuclear power plant is nice, is it not? A country needs energy, does it not? Whether or not the sanctions in their form would have been dropped completely, allowing Hussein to rearm, is a "What if..." thing. It is impossible to tell whether or not Hussein would have been allowed to reinstate his programmes and no UN inspections happening at all. I think, the UN would not have allowed it - it would not have been in the interest of the US to do so.

Building a nuclear power plant is nice, is it not? A country needs energy, does it not? Whether or not the sanctions in their form would have been dropped completely, allowing Hussein to rearm, is a "What if..." thing. It is impossible to tell whether or not Hussein would have been allowed to reinstate his programmes and no UN inspections happening at all. I think, the UN would not have allowed it - it would not have been in the interest of the US to do so.

So you do not have a problem with a guy like Saddam, who had nuclear ambitions having the basic tools of building a nuclear bomb? He wanted to resume his programs. We found centrifuge parts AND blueprints for making more buried in the back yard of one of his nuclear scientists. How much of this stuff is still out there? The Iraqi's seem to like burying things. They pretty much buried their air force. By doing so they rendered it useless, but they must nothave realized that at the time.

You malign the entire institution of the UN based on the actions of some of its members. My point is that to do that, you must also level the same criticisms at the US, because 1. we are a member, and 2. we engage in the same practices that you point to as being oh-so-heinous (both inside the UN and external to the UN).

People who live in glass houses...

Absolutely...and I have stated that those US companies so involved should be punished...severely. However, what the French were doing is beyond what US companies were doing. They pretty much sold their vote on the security council to Saddam. Herein lies the difference.

Now, say the French had been successful in getting the sanctions lifted and benefitted from the contracts they signed illegally. Do you think they would have had any compunction in helping Saddam aquire WMD's again?

What we have not even touched on yet....remember all those children that were dying because of the "US" sanctions on Iraq? Kind of puts this in perspective doesn't it?

So you do not have a problem with a guy like Saddam, who had nuclear ambitions having the basic tools of building a nuclear bomb? He wanted to resume his programs. We found centrifuge parts AND blueprints for making more buried in the back yard of one of his nuclear scientists. How much of this stuff is still out there? The Iraqi's seem to like burying things. They pretty much buried their air force. By doing so they rendered it useless, but they must nothave realized that at the time.
In any case, using a nuclear weapon against the US would have been very silly by Saddam. If anything, he wanted it to deter his neighbors from being bullies and trying to steal his power. Hussein was not a threat to the US, even if he had a WMD. Iraq - US is a fairly long distance ;)

Other than this, I am not a nuclear bomb expert, but I doubt that material from a nuclear power plant can be used to simply make a nuclear bomb from it. There need to be more things for something like this, which Saddam apparently did not have, or he would have reactivated his WMD programmes.

Absolutely...and I have stated that those US companies so involved should be punished...severely. However, what the French were doing is beyond what US companies were doing. They pretty much sold their vote on the security council to Saddam. Herein lies the difference.

Now, say the French had been successful in getting the sanctions lifted and benefitted from the contracts they signed illegally. Do you think they would have had any compunction in helping Saddam aquire WMD's?

Okay, maybe I wasn't making myself clear. We sell our votes in the UN ALL THE TIME. That's a sellout. We can argue that it's in our national interests, but more often than not, it's in our corporate interests. Now, given that we sell our votes as well, the only difference between us and France is that they sold out to someone who we NOW consider our enemy. Hence, your criticisms of their government and ignoring of our governmental complicity is supporting Saddam as well are hypocritical.

And I never approved of sanctions by anyone, US, UN, whoever.

The UN IS seperate and disticnt from the US. The US is but ONE member of the organization. It does not control it. That a number of countries vote for sanctions and then, on an OFFICIAL level violate them, all the while purporting to uphold them with resolution after resolution, all the while knowing that nothing will come of them does not bother you is beyond me.

Corruption at the highest level of politics!!!!!!

I am dumbstruck!!!!!!!!

In any case, using a nuclear weapon against the US would have been very silly by Saddam. If anything, he wanted it to deter his neighbors from being bullies and trying to steal his power. Hussein was not a threat to the US, even if he had a WMD. Iraq - US is a fairly long distance ;)

Other than this, I am not a nuclear bomb expert, but I doubt that material from a nuclear power plant can be used to simply make a nuclear bomb from it. There need to be more things for something like this, which Saddam apparently did not have, or he would have reactivated his WMD programmes.

Herein lies the flaw in your thinking. Saddam did not have to attack the US directly. We know he provided support for may different terrorists. Had he gotten his hands on a nuclear weapon, he would have in all likelyhood given it to a terrorist group to smuggle into the US or to detonate in a harbor, like New York harbor. That was the greatest threat he posed.

Yes, there is specialized equipment you need to enrich uranium to make plutonium. We found some of those componemts buried as I have previously stated. So the base of a program was there, just not the material to start it.

Okay, maybe I wasn't making myself clear. We sell our votes in the UN ALL THE TIME. That's a sellout. We can argue that it's in our national interests, but more often than not, it's in our corporate interests. Now, given that we sell our votes as well, the only difference between us and France is that they sold out to someone who we NOW consider our enemy. Hence, your criticisms of their government and ignoring of our governmental complicity is supporting Saddam as well are hypocritical.

And I never approved of sanctions by anyone, US, UN, whoever.

Actually we considered Saddam an enemy since 1991. France took money for their vote directly from Iraq who would then grant french companies lucrative contracts. They have been caught. How you can just dismiss that and say that the US does the same thing is beyond me. IF we ever literally SOLD our vote in the UN I would hope we would be booted from the organization. It certainly kills credibility does it not? French votes now will be looked at in a different light.

Bash the French a bit always a nice thing to do. But dont forget:

Hallowed be thy name
Thou shalt be hypocrits!!

I can remember a nice picture of Rumsfeldt shaking Saddams hands ...

Herein lies the flaw in your thinking. Saddam did not have to attack the US directly. We know he provided support for may different terrorists. Had he gotten his hands on a nuclear weapon, he would have in all likelyhood given it to a terrorist group to smuggle into the US or to detonate in a harbor, like New York harbor. That was the greatest threat he posed.

Yes, there is specialized equipment you need to enrich uranium to make plutonium. We found some of those componemts buried as I have previously stated. So the base of a program was there, just not the material to start it.
I've read about this former Iraqi WMD program scientist who said this. I am skeptical about any info from former Iraqi officials who have a stake in Hussein being denounced as a horrible nuclear-power-seeking madman. Chalabi proved untrustworthy as did a relative of him called "Curveball".

Just to remind you how it was:


Before the war, the CIA was largely skeptical of Chalabi and the INC, but information from his group (most famously from a defector codenamed "Curveball") made its way into intelligence dossiers used to help convince the public in America and Britain of the need to go to war. "Curveball" – the brother of a top lieutenant of Chalabi – fed hundreds of pages of bogus "firsthand" descriptions of mobile biological weapons factories on wheels and rails. Secretary of State Colin Powell later used this information in a UN presentation trying to garner support for the war, despite warnings from German intelligence that "Curveball" was fabricating claims. Since then, the CIA has admitted that the defector made up the story, and Colin Powell apologized for using the information in his speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi

Notice the "bogus" in this quote? This is what much of the stuff coming out of Iraq, especially from people who have an interest in being sympathetic to the US, could possibly be. I am thus cautious with believing everything that is said on reports from Iraq.

I've read about this former Iraqi WMD program scientist who said this. I am skeptical about any info from former Iraqi officials who have a stake in Hussein being denounced as a horrible nuclear-power-seeking madman. Chalabi proved untrustworthy as did a relative of him called "Curveball".

Just to remind you how it was:


Notice the "bogus" in this quote? This is what much of the stuff coming out of Iraq, especially from people who have an interest in being sympathetic to the US, could possibly be. I am thus cautious with believing everything that is said on reports from Iraq.

Yes, I agree with some of that. But we found actual centrifuge parts buried in an Iraqi nuclear scientists back yard. Plus he had the diagrams for building more in his home. he stated that he had been instructed to take them home and hide them from the inspectors. We can dismiss a lot of what has come out...but actual parts and diagrams are harder to.

Actually we considered Saddam an enemy since 1991. France took money for their vote directly from Iraq who would then grant french companies lucrative contracts. They have been caught. How you can just dismiss that and say that the US does the same thing is beyond me. IF we ever literally SOLD our vote in the UN I would hope we would be booted from the organization. It certainly kills credibility does it not? French votes now will be looked at in a different light.

Yes, and we've been funnelling oil contracts through France (turning a blind eye until now?) and other country's subsidiaries since the early to mid 90's. I don't dismiss any of the actions of the members of the UN. But I equally don't dismiss ours. I haven't seen any proof that France literally sold its vote (the only argument I've seen is that France had business dealings it wanted to protect), and the US was doing the exact same thing.

If you want UN credibility to take a hit (which it certainly deserves), then concede that our credibility deserves to have taken the same hit.

Bash the French a bit always a nice thing to do. But dont forget:

Hallowed be thy name
Thou shalt be hypocrits!!

I can remember a nice picture of Rumsfeldt shaking Saddams hands ...

Pictures are nice...but that meeting was in the 1980's and are in no way related to the French support for Saddam in the UN and the oil for food scandal. But nice try though, have a cookie.

Yes, and we've been funnelling oil contracts through France (turning a blind eye until now?) and other country's subsidiaries since the early to mid 90's. I don't dismiss any of the actions of the members of the UN. But I equally don't dismiss ours. I haven't seen any proof that France literally sold its vote (the only argument I've seen is that France had business dealings it wanted to protect), and the US was doing the exact same thing.

If you want UN credibility to take a hit (which it certainly deserves), then concede that our credibility deserves to have taken the same hit.

Ours has taken a hit because of the US companies who were doing back room deals too.

The difference is that the French government took up the fight for Saddam and promised him that they would veto any action the US did in the UN. The had an interest in seeing him remain in power and they played that card hard. Too bad they did not take Bush's resolve to heart. The whole thing could have turned out differently if not for the French. I seriously doubt Saddam would have been so stubborn if France was not backing him.

Ours has taken a hit because of the US companies who were doing back room deals too.

The difference is that the French government took up the fight for Saddam and promised him that they would veto any action the US did in the UN. The had an interest in seeing him remain in power and they played that card hard. Too bad they did not take Bush's resolve to heart. The whole thing could have turned out differently if not for the French. I seriously doubt Saddam would have been so stubborn if France was not backing him.

1. Saddam was complying with inspectors before the invasion. Whether he would've continued, we'll never know.

2. The French government has explained why it took up the fight. There is zero evidence that indicates they directly "sold their vote". The only argument you have on this is that they had corporate interests there and protected those. I have pointed out (and it has gone unrefuted) that our government allowed loopholes and our corporations to do business with Saddam, which means that this outrage of yours should be equally directed at the US.

3. We have interests in the UN that we "play hard" as well. The only reason you have a criticism of France now for behaving that way is because of who you (and the current administration) want you to see as the enemy. If Iran would've been the enemy instead of Saddam, this would be a non-issue.

4. You also concede the fact that our contracts have been funneled through subsidiaries in France for years now, which means that at least on SOME level we were aware of France's business dealings with Iraq. Why is it that in the past 3 years those have become evil? WMD? Oh wait, not there. Humyn rights abuses? Oh wait, we left him in power long after we knew about those. Wars of aggression? Oh wait, our government let Haliburton continue doing business with Saddam after 1991.

It's easy to blame others. It's hard to point the finger at yourself. Those responsible for the corruption in the UN should be held responsible. And the US government should be, too.

And while you point out that our credibility has taken a hit, you're up in arms about the French. Why aren't you railing against our government as well?

Sanctions are rubbish. They're worse that actual war and they only ever work against democracies.

Everyone says "sanctions were working" and they are better than what's going on now, but they weren't. Before the US invaded human rights groups said that the sanctions had led to death of 1.5 million iraqis. Even unicef claimed that 500,000 children under five had died because of the shortages caused by sanctions. (Though they have now taken that down from their website -self righteous gits).

Do you think Saddam cared that we were sanctioning the country. Not really, he was still living in his big palaces and laughing while his psycho sons ran rape rooms.

The only people who were effected by the sanctions were the poor and powerless in iraq. The elites there still lived the high-life and continued to torture their own people.

Compared to the sanctions, the actions by the US are minor.

People who attack the current action over there are either moral cowards, who are prepared to let the poor and powerless starve to death as long as they don't have to have any blood on their own hands, or blatant anti-anglo americans who presuppose any act by the US/UK must necessarily be the work of the devil.

Honestly, sometimes the moral blindness of these so-called "humanitarians" baffles me.

In conclusion. Sanctions killed hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of powerless and opressed Iraqis. The US has killed mostly only those who were opressing them and laughing while they starved. That makes the US bad how?

Sanctions are rubbish. They're worse that actual war and they only ever work against democracies.

Everyone says "sanctions were working" and they are better than what's going on now, but they weren't. Before the US invaded human rights groups said that the sanctions had led to death of 1.5 million iraqis. Even unicef claimed that 500,000 children under five had died because of the shortages caused by sanctions. (Though they have now taken that down from their website -self righteous gits).

Do you think Saddam cared that we were sanctioning the country. Not really, he was still living in his big palaces and laughing while his psycho sons ran rape rooms.

The only people who were effected by the sanctions were the poor and powerless in iraq. The elites there still lived the high-life and continued to torture their own people.

Compared to the sanctions, the actions by the US are minor.

People who attack the current action over there are either moral cowards, who are prepared to let the poor and powerless starve to death as long as they don't have to have any blood on their own hands, or blatant anti-anglo americans who presuppose any act by the US/UK must necessarily be the work of the devil.

Honestly, sometimes the moral blindness of these so-called "humanitarians" baffles me.

In conclusion. Sanctions killed hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of powerless and opressed Iraqis. The US has killed mostly only those who were opressing them and laughing while they starved. That makes the US bad how?
Next stop: the United States of America, where people enjoy the comforts of Guantanamo Bay and the hospitality of US troops in prisons such as Abu Ghraib.

Next stop: China, where people enjoy the great freedoms of free spech.

Next stop: Russia, where the "president" decides who make the best rulers for the people.

Next stop: Pakistan, where a military dictator called Musharraf (who calls himself *cough* president *cough* just like Hussein did) rules and is being supported by the US because he is a "US ally".

The sanctions were harsh and killed many people because they included things which are necessary for a civilian population. I think it was intended for the sanctions to harm the civil population so much that they would rise up against Hussein and overthrow him themselves, which did not happen. Instead of totally lifting them (including any military sanctions), the UN would probably have lowered the strength of the sanctions a bit, to not include things like medicine, which the civilians needed for survival.

Here's a site showing some photos of children who suffered under the malnutrition due to the sanctions:

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/iraq/genocide.htm

1. Saddam was complying with inspectors before the invasion. Whether he would've continued, we'll never know.

Well, Richard Gephardt was on the news this morning saying that the inspections were not working because we did not give them enough time. I think 12 years was long enough and how many reports do we need to read about Iraqi trucks running out the back gate as inspectors come through the front to realize that Saddam was playing a shell game? He was not complying and had no intention to. He was waiting for his buddies in Paris to get the sanctions lifted so he coupld pick up where he left off.

2. The French government has explained why it took up the fight. There is zero evidence that indicates they directly "sold their vote". The only argument you have on this is that they had corporate interests there and protected those. I have pointed out (and it has gone unrefuted) that our government allowed loopholes and our corporations to do business with Saddam, which means that this outrage of yours should be equally directed at the US.

My outrage is also dirested at the US corporations that violated the sanctions too. However, I do not think the US government was involved in that as the French government clearly was.

3. We have interests in the UN that we "play hard" as well. The only reason you have a criticism of France now for behaving that way is because of who you (and the current administration) want you to see as the enemy. If Iran would've been the enemy instead of Saddam, this would be a non-issue.

Yes, we do "play hard" on some issues. However, the French voted for the sanctions and then, on an official level violated them all the while telling the US that they supported our position. Since this has come out, Chirac has been on an anti-US rant. He is in Vietnam today decrying our "English language" based culture that will destroy the environment. :rolleyes:

4. You also concede the fact that our contracts have been funneled through subsidiaries in France for years now, which means that at least on SOME level we were aware of France's business dealings with Iraq. Why is it that in the past 3 years those have become evil? WMD? Oh wait, not there. Humyn rights abuses? Oh wait, we left him in power long after we knew about those. Wars of aggression? Oh wait, our government let Haliburton continue doing business with Saddam after 1991.

I don't think our government actually knew too much of what was going on. We have asked the UN to release it's documents on the oil for food program but they refuse. I find it ironic that Koffi Ananns son benefitted greatly from the program and that the UN itself realized 3% of the monies derived from the program. Wasn't the whole thing set up to buy food and medicine for the Iraqi people?

It's easy to blame others. It's hard to point the finger at yourself. Those responsible for the corruption in the UN should be held responsible. And the US government should be, too.

I agree....but I will be willing to bet that the only ones so punished will be the US companies. France will not do anything and we will do nothing to France.

And while you point out that our credibility has taken a hit, you're up in arms about the French. Why aren't you railing against our government as well?

Because while some corporations have been found to be doing business illegally, and should be dealt with in draconian fashion, it was not our governments policy to promote the dealings. The French government cannot say that.

Next stop: the United States of America, where people enjoy the comforts of Guantanamo Bay and the hospitality of US troops in prisons such as Abu Ghraib.

Next stop: China, where people enjoy the great freedoms of free spech.

Next stop: Russia, where the "president" decides who make the best rulers for the people.

Next stop: Pakistan, where a military dictator called Musharraf (who calls himself *cough* president *cough* just like Hussein did) rules and is being supported by the US because he is a "US ally".

Did I say I supported any of those things?

NO I DID NOT.

I said the sanctions killed far more innocent people than the current US military action. You have offered nothing whatsoever to refute this.

And in any event abu gharaib is in iraq. As, under the geneva protocols which "internationlists" are always flabbling on about, an occupying force is allowed to enforce the legal code of the occupied state if it wishes, well those people there can consider themselves damn lucky we didn't chop their ears off. That would be in accord with the geneva treaties you know, and perfectly legal since the former regime did it all the time. Plus, lets face it, those idiots there thought it was all sh*ts and giggles when they doing it to other people.

As to GITMO: Oh boo-hoo, the people who took UN money to build a beheading stadium have now had their actions catch up with them. Pardon me while I do not care.

Then you babble about China, Russia and Pakistan. In case you haven't noticed. THOSE COUNTRIES ARE NOT RUN BY THE US. So what does that have to do with anything? Are you suggesting they need the US to invade and help them out? Because I wouldn't approve of that. Apparently the anti-iraq war factions new compliant IS THAT THE WAR WASN'T BIG ENOUGH.
Thank god the US has Bush and not some war crazed liberal.

In summary, sanctions bad and ineffective: US war against Iraq, far less bad and Iraq. Therefore US war in Iraq the right thing to do.

Please employ logic in the future.

Did I say I supported any of those things?

NO I DID NOT.
[quote]
I said the sanctions killed far more innocent people than the current US military action. You have offered nothing whatsoever to refute this.

True that.. the US/UK enforced sanctions caused much more civilian deaths than the US/UK military invasion. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place.. tisk tisk...


And in any event abu gharaib is in iraq. As, under the geneva protocols which "internationlists" are always flabbling on about, an occupying force is allowed to enforce the legal code of the occupied state if it wishes, well those people there can consider themselves damn lucky we didn't chop their ears off. That would be in accord with the geneva treaties you know, and perfectly legal since the former regime did it all the time. Plus, lets face it, those idiots there thought it was all sh*ts and giggles when they doing it to other people.

Ah so now the US lowers itself to the standard of oppressive regimes to justify it's failures. SPIN DOCTOR, HERE, THE CANDIDATE STILL SHOWS SIGNS OF LIFE!!!

As to GITMO: Oh boo-hoo, the people who took UN money to build a beheading stadium have now had their actions catch up with them. Pardon me while I do not care.

I see, so you agree that the Patriot Act has been the greatest invention since the signing of the Bill of Rights? You do know that inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay are there in defiance of US law and international law, barring them from having fair trial? Being assumed guilty unless proven innocent? I guess, so long as you yourself do not end up there, it does not concern you...

Then you babble about China, Russia and Pakistan. In case you haven't noticed. THOSE COUNTRIES ARE NOT RUN BY THE US. So what does that have to do with anything? Are you suggesting they need the US to invade and help them out? Because I wouldn't approve of that. Apparently the anti-iraq war factions new compliant IS THAT THE WAR WASN'T BIG ENOUGH.
Thank god the US has Bush and not some war crazed liberal.

Just showing you that your neo-con justification for the war is far fetched and applies to a number of countries, which are largely backed by the US, despite being equally as dangerous or equally as oppressive, yet nothing happens and the US smiles. Hypocrisy in action.

In summary, sanctions bad and ineffective: US war against Iraq, far less bad and Iraq. Therefore US war in Iraq the right thing to do.

Please employ logic in the future.
Sanctions enforced by US/UK. Sanctions prevented even the most basic things (among them *gasp* things needed to build WMD *gasp*) from entering Iraq. Sanctions effective in hindering Hussein from building WMD, but too harsh on civilian population by banning necessary things (such as medicine or hospital equipment) to make them rise up against Hussein, which indeed was ineffective in that regard. US war against Iraq, the wrong thing to do as it sets a precedent of preemptive war in defiance of the UN charter, overburdens the US military with responsibility and work and inflamed the middle east into a terrorist hotbed. Welcome to the real world, where logic prevails.

Ok, conspiracy theory.....

Saddam was getting assistance from countries in violation of the sanctions. We do know that German companies built his chemical defense bunkers and other structures. We know this because when they were found all the equipment was built in Germany and had german instruction manuals.

So....and yes, this IS a real stretch, but it IS possible....

Who is to say that France was NOT helping Saddam build a WMD program, then when the US started sabre rattling they removed the evidence. Afterall, they had months to do so. They DID assure Saddam that they would fight the US on the Security council and told him the US would not invade against the UN....afterall, we never had before.

Why do I think the French would do such a thing? Well, they were building a nuclear power plant for Saddam before the Israelis bombed it in 1981. Yes, my theory is way out there....but it IS possible.Here's a more realistic one. Saddam got rid of his WMD--or the UN inspectors did it post Gulf War 1--but in order to maintain his power at home and to maintain a position of power in the region especially as respects Iran, he hinted around like he still had WMD or was trying to manufacture them. He did it so his people and his neighbors would still fear him and not try to depose him, and he took the chance that the US wouldn't care about his veiled references. He didn't count on the psychosis of the neocons and George W. Bush.

Well, Richard Gephardt was on the news this morning saying that the inspections were not working because we did not give them enough time. I think 12 years was long enough and how many reports do we need to read about Iraqi trucks running out the back gate as inspectors come through the front to realize that Saddam was playing a shell game? He was not complying and had no intention to. He was waiting for his buddies in Paris to get the sanctions lifted so he coupld pick up where he left off.

1. Unsupported assertion on your part. Your hatred of the French is your right, but it's fairly clear that it colors all of your arguments. While Saddam's shell game is hardly being disputed, it's pretty ridiculous for him to have assumed that Bush wouldn't invade, given how little he cared for international support. Hence, if Saddam is as savvy as you claim, he would've realized that complying with the UN wouldn't save him, hence he would've preemptively struck. Equally valid interpretation of events. Admit your bias and move on, because you have no way of proving this point.

My outrage is also dirested at the US corporations that violated the sanctions too. However, I do not think the US government was involved in that as the French government clearly was.

1. No, it's not. The title of this thead is "Evidence of UN bungling in...". Nor have you started any other threads about US corporate complicity with Saddam. You are not acting nearly as outraged about the US part in things.

2. You continue to ignore the fact that for our companies to go there and conduct business, they had to have at least implicit support from the government. Hence, we're just as guilty as the French in governmentally supporting Saddam. Oh, did we forget about the other thread in which you were shown to be completely wrong in how much military aid we've given to Iraq? It doesn't matter when we decided Saddam wasn't our ally anymore...he's the same guy with the same policies that you so wonderfully criticize now that it's in our government's interest to portray them negatively.

Yes, we do "play hard" on some issues. However, the French voted for the sanctions and then, on an official level violated them all the while telling the US that they supported our position. Since this has come out, Chirac has been on an anti-US rant. He is in Vietnam today decrying our "English language" based culture that will destroy the environment. :rolleyes:

1. So we play hard, the French play hard, but because our "enemies" don't happen to coincide, their government is somehow different from ours? Hardly.

2. As for destroying the environment, while not necessarily unique to the US, our unwillingness to sign on to environmental treaties that most of the rest of the world is willing to sorta backs up that position.

I don't think our government actually knew too much of what was going on.

That's mighty optimistic of you. Sure you're not holding our government to the same standard that you're holding the French government to?

We have asked the UN to release it's documents on the oil for food program but they refuse. I find it ironic that Koffi Ananns son benefitted greatly from the program and that the UN itself realized 3% of the monies derived from the program. Wasn't the whole thing set up to buy food and medicine for the Iraqi people?

I'm wondering what you mean when you say "they refuse". Is it something like the US refusing to release details of the US companies that were in violation? Or is it something else? Additionally, define "benefitted greatly". I'm interested in how this is possible when all the word I've seen (that wasn't in the National Review or on FOXNews) indicates that Kojo Annan had resigned from Cotecna before they were awarded the contract and that the contract was awarded legitimitely. Additionally, I haven't seen any evidence that contradicts the independent commission that investigated the legitimacy of Cotecna's contract. If you have new evidence, please present it here.

I agree....but I will be willing to bet that the only ones so punished will be the US companies. France will not do anything and we will do nothing to France.

Really? You think the companies in the US will be punished? How? By fining them amounts that are absolutely insignificant compared with the amount of money they made? Wow, what a punishment.

Because while some corporations have been found to be doing business illegally, and should be dealt with in draconian fashion, it was not our governments policy to promote the dealings. The French government cannot say that.

How can you assert this when the government left those loopholes in place, and when Haliburton was found to be in violation (selling dual-use technology in Iraq and selling pulse neutron generators to Libya), we only fined them a couple million dollars (the equivalent of a tap on the wrist), then let them keep doing whatever else they were doing?

I think that your indignation at corruption in the UN is laudable. I think the blind eye you turn to our country's similar actions is hypocritical, particularly in your vituperation toward France.

True that.. the US/UK enforced sanctions caused much more civilian deaths than the US/UK military invasion. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place.. tisk tisk...

In case you hadn't noticed. THEY WERE UN SANCTIONS NOT US/UK, don't impute the guilt for that train wreck to the US, the entire world has blood on its hands from that one.. And internationalists wanted to keep them in place forever, even after a decade had prooved they were doing nothing to improve the situation. I fail to see how having the moral courage to defy the "conventional wisdom" internationalist nattering nabobs who were prepared to allow millions of innocent people to starve qualifies as a being between a rock and a hard place. If it hadn't been for the US those people would still be starving. Therefore, it is beyond dispute that the invasion of Iraq was a ggod thing.


Ah so now the US lowers itself to the standard of oppressive regimes to justify it's failures. SPIN DOCTOR, HERE, THE CANDIDATE STILL SHOWS SIGNS OF LIFE!!!

No, if you read my post I specifically pointed out that THE US HAD NOT LOWERED ITSELF TO THOSE STANDARDS AND NOR ARE ITS ACTIONS ILLEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW. I was making the point that the treatment the detainees were receiving was far better than they had any right to expect and in any case was far better than they dished out when they had the whip hand. No-one has mutilated them starved them or beat them.

Also, consider this, what does this really have to do with the fact that even if, for the sake of argument only, the US has violated the rights of these cretins - which I deny, overall the US's actions have been far more humane in terms of human cost than the status quo before. I'll say it again. Sanctions bad. War better.

Apparently you do not care how many Iraqi children die, as long as the US doesn't violate the humans rights of a few brutal thugs at ab gharaib and GITMO. Well done.

I see, so you agree that the Patriot Act has been the greatest invention since the signing of the Bill of Rights? You do know that inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay are there in defiance of US law and international law, barring them from having fair trial? Being assumed guilty unless proven innocent? I guess, so long as you yourself do not end up there, it does not concern you..

What does the patriot act have to do with this. The US could have done this with or without the Patriot act. That is a total non-sequitur. Also, for your edification only, unlike in europe, the US actually has a functioning entrenched constitution. Parts of the patriot act have already been ruled unconstitutional. You see, the US cannot just ignore its own laws. Unlike the rest of the world apparently.

Also, to become law the bill of rights was ratified, not signed. In the US we have the concept of CONSENT BY THE GOVERENED. Europeans do not understand that we do not view the government as the source of power. Rather we view the governed as the source of power. That is why, to many Americans dictatorships are illegitimate ab initio, whereas europeans wring their hands over the fallacious notion of international sovereignty.

And what does the presumption of innocence have to do with anything. Other than its an ANGLO-AMERICAN IDEA. Those people aren't charged with crimes. They are held there for status reasons, not for criminal prosecution.


Just showing you that your neo-con justification for the war is far fetched and applies to a number of countries, which are largely backed by the US, despite being equally as dangerous or equally as oppressive, yet nothing happens and the US smiles. Hypocrisy in action.

No it didn't. My "neo-con", as you so inaptly put it, justification was that the US's actions were far better in terms of human rights concerns than the stupid sanctions were. Those other countries are not now under sanctions, and have not been in recent memory. SO WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING.

Iraq was never going to have the sanctions lifted, AND NOT A SINGLE OTHER NATION CAMPAIGNED TO CHANGE THAT. The status quo was awful. Today's reality is better. Only the US/UK really did anything to change that. So how are they bad again? I suggest you spend less time criticizing the US and more time critizing the inaction and moral apathy of the rest of the world my friend.


Sanctions enforced by US/UK. Sanctions prevented even the most basic things (among them *gasp* things needed to build WMD *gasp*) from entering Iraq. Sanctions effective in hindering Hussein from building WMD, but too harsh on civilian population by banning necessary things (such as medicine or hospital equipment) to make them rise up against Hussein, which indeed was ineffective in that regard. US war against Iraq, the wrong thing to do as it sets a precedent of preemptive war in defiance of the UN charter, overburdens the US military with responsibility and work and inflamed the middle east into a terrorist hotbed. Welcome to the real world, where logic prevails.

1. I never mentioned WMD. I don't care about that AND THAT'S NOT THE ONLY REASON THERE WERE SANCTIONS ANYWAY.

2. UN sanctions, not US/UK. And if I had to choose between what the US did, and starving 1.5 million oppressed people to prevent the development of WMD by saddam's regime, as a humanitarian I would choose the former. This is absolutely the worse kind of abnegation of moral culpability. It's fine to impose sanctions in perpetua that kill millions of people, as long as no-one actually has to do anything affirmative, is that it?

3. US military overburdened? Oh, so we shouldn't do the right thing if it costs us money or effort. OK, I understand morality now. Don't do anything that may take any effort. We should have stayed out of europe twice too then.

What the US did was right in terms of human cost. If you are anti-american just say so, I won't hold it against you. But don't wrap your outrage at the US up in moral indignation about the US slaughtering innocent Iraqis.

And as for pre-emptive wars. Remember munich 1938. If only someone had the courage to start a pre-emptive war back then.

You have done nothing to proove that the US has acted unjustly. It is, as I maintain, the most justly acting nation of any in regards to Iraq. Your complaints are irrelevent to my main point.

Here's a more realistic one. Saddam got rid of his WMD--or the UN inspectors did it post Gulf War 1--but in order to maintain his power at home and to maintain a position of power in the region especially as respects Iran, he hinted around like he still had WMD or was trying to manufacture them. He did it so his people and his neighbors would still fear him and not try to depose him, and he took the chance that the US wouldn't care about his veiled references. He didn't count on the psychosis of the neocons and George W. Bush.

Or he also did not count on 9-11 bringing his "threats" more realism than he intended. IF he was bluffing, and I think he may well have been, then he wanted everyone to believe that he had WMD's. So when people did believe he had them, and it was a great many intelligence agencies who did, it was too late. Either way, he is gone and his threats and actual programs are no longer viable.

Or he also did not count on 9-11 bringing his "threats" more realism than he intended. IF he was bluffing, and I think he may well have been, then he wanted everyone to believe that he had WMD's. So when people did believe he had them, and it was a great many intelligence agencies who did, it was too late. Either way, he is gone and his threats and actual programs are no longer viable.See, now we're getting into the real issue--why did intelligence agencies believe Hussein had them? Was it because they wanted to believe, or because they had reason? The reporting on Doug Feith's Offics of Special Planning points to the former--that they wanted to believe and therefore looked only at intelligence favorable to their thesis, no matter how suspect it might have been. And beyond that, why would there be reason to believe that Hussein, even if he had been able to marginally restart WMD programs, was more of a pressing danger than either Iran or North Korea?

Here's where the issue of competence comes into play in the Presidential campaign. There were many people--some of them in the President's own party--who were openly wondering why we were obsessing on Iraq when there were more pressing threats, namely al Qaeda, Iran and North Korea. A competent leader would have weighed those threats, decided that Hussein--bastard though he was--was at least partially contained and that we had enough firepower close at hand to strike quickly if necessary, and then would have continued the fight in Afghanistan while making the case against Iran and North Korea.

We went after the least of our worries, and as a result, we now have North Korea with nukes, Iran with a growing program, and al Qaeda regrouping (with the Taliban threatening death to people who vote in the elections in Afghanistan, elections which will have a high degree of fraud involved).

Well the sanctions against Iraq were brought to the UNSC by the US/UK. Thought up by the clever masterminds in Washington who thought the people of Iraq would rise up and riot against their oppressive dictator. That did not work. Instead, they silently suffered and died. Now this is the newest spin to the war: it was humanitarian to do it because the (US/UK) sanctions before the war were too harsh on them. Woah guess what, people wanted to have them lifted and replaced with less strict regulations. But nooo, the US/UK would not want anything of that.

The US is a lieing, cheating, bastard rogue nation devoid of any moral highground. And I am tired of jingoistic crap being flung around to justify the war. It's the modern disaster of the US, Bush is responsible for it and I chuckle as the US government rapidly flap their arms, trying to gain some ground. It's just pathetic but so fitting for an arrogant people who think they are god's gift to mankind.

See, now we're getting into the real issue--why did intelligence agencies believe Hussein had them? Was it because they wanted to believe, or because they had reason? The reporting on Doug Feith's Offics of Special Planning points to the former--that they wanted to believe and therefore looked only at intelligence favorable to their thesis, no matter how suspect it might have been. And beyond that, why would there be reason to believe that Hussein, even if he had been able to marginally restart WMD programs, was more of a pressing danger than either Iran or North Korea?

Here's where the issue of competence comes into play in the Presidential campaign. There were many people--some of them in the President's own party--who were openly wondering why we were obsessing on Iraq when there were more pressing threats, namely al Qaeda, Iran and North Korea. A competent leader would have weighed those threats, decided that Hussein--bastard though he was--was at least partially contained and that we had enough firepower close at hand to strike quickly if necessary, and then would have continued the fight in Afghanistan while making the case against Iran and North Korea.

We went after the least of our worries, and as a result, we now have North Korea with nukes, Iran with a growing program, and al Qaeda regrouping (with the Taliban threatening death to people who vote in the elections in Afghanistan, elections which will have a high degree of fraud involved).

So WHY would the Russians, Germans, British or French WANT to believe that he had them if there was so much evidence that he did not?

That we HAVE found some items consistent with WMD manufacture shows that there was a limited ability if not an outright program.

Now, back to another conspiracy theory I have had....

Since Iran is considered the greatest terrorist threat, what would be the easiest way to neutralize them? Take Iraq of course and set up permanent US bases there. That is taking shape now, slowly...but it is.

Build up the bases and the means, then build a case for invasion. Lets say they are building nukes or something. Then we invade on the pretense that they actually have nuclear weapons and we depose the imams and establish democracy there along with some permanent bases to keep things in check. Syria takes note and straightens up for a change. Support for Hamas dries up and they all but disappear. The west then has control of the worlds oil reserves and the price drops significantly.

Of course Iran is playing into our hands by actually announcing that they are building nukes. So that saves us the trouble of building the case against them. If they were smart they would open their program up and let the world know nothing of the sort is happening there. Libya did this and they are now not on the bad guy list.....

So WHY would the Russians, Germans, British or French WANT to believe that he had them if there was so much evidence that he did not?

That we HAVE found some items consistent with WMD manufacture shows that there was a limited ability if not an outright program.

Now, back to another conspiracy theory I have had....

Since Iran is considered the greatest terrorist threat, what would be the easiest way to neutralize them? Take Iraq of course and set up permanent US bases there. That is taking shape now, slowly...but it is.

Build up the bases and the means, then build a case for invasion. Lets say they are building nukes or something. Then we invade on the pretense that they actually have nuclear weapons and we depose the imams and establish democracy there along with some permanent bases to keep things in check. Syria takes note and straightens up for a change. Support for Hamas dries up and they all but disappear. The west then has control of the worlds oil reserves and the price drops significantly.

Of course Iran is playing into our hands by actually announcing that they are building nukes. So that saves us the trouble of building the case against them. If they were smart they would open their program up and let the world know nothing of the sort is happening there. Libya did this and they are now not on the bad guy list.....
And all the while the US wonder why 9/11 happened. My god you have short memory. Does the constant harping on 9/11 in the US not remind you of why it happened in the first place? Do you need another 9/11 with even greater suffering? And after the middle east, what's next? Where will the US strike next to press it's "great culture" on yet another nation? Did you ever consider taking care of your own country instead of messing up the entire world?

Biff, you didn't answer my post. Are you just trying to be a demagogue again, as you claimed in that other thread? Or should we assume you're making a serious argument this time?

Biff Pileon for President!!!!

1. Unsupported assertion on your part. Your hatred of the French is your right, but it's fairly clear that it colors all of your arguments. While Saddam's shell game is hardly being disputed, it's pretty ridiculous for him to have assumed that Bush wouldn't invade, given how little he cared for international support. Hence, if Saddam is as savvy as you claim, he would've realized that complying with the UN wouldn't save him, hence he would've preemptively struck. Equally valid interpretation of events. Admit your bias and move on, because you have no way of proving this point.

1. No, it's not. The title of this thead is "Evidence of UN bungling in...". Nor have you started any other threads about US corporate complicity with Saddam. You are not acting nearly as outraged about the US part in things.

2. You continue to ignore the fact that for our companies to go there and conduct business, they had to have at least implicit support from the government. Hence, we're just as guilty as the French in governmentally supporting Saddam. Oh, did we forget about the other thread in which you were shown to be completely wrong in how much military aid we've given to Iraq? It doesn't matter when we decided Saddam wasn't our ally anymore...he's the same guy with the same policies that you so wonderfully criticize now that it's in our government's interest to portray them negatively.

1. So we play hard, the French play hard, but because our "enemies" don't happen to coincide, their government is somehow different from ours? Hardly.

2. As for destroying the environment, while not necessarily unique to the US, our unwillingness to sign on to environmental treaties that most of the rest of the world is willing to sorta backs up that position.

That's mighty optimistic of you. Sure you're not holding our government to the same standard that you're holding the French government to?

I'm wondering what you mean when you say "they refuse". Is it something like the US refusing to release details of the US companies that were in violation? Or is it something else? Additionally, define "benefitted greatly". I'm interested in how this is possible when all the word I've seen (that wasn't in the National Review or on FOXNews) indicates that Kojo Annan had resigned from Cotecna before they were awarded the contract and that the contract was awarded legitimitely. Additionally, I haven't seen any evidence that contradicts the independent commission that investigated the legitimacy of Cotecna's contract. If you have new evidence, please present it here.

Really? You think the companies in the US will be punished? How? By fining them amounts that are absolutely insignificant compared with the amount of money they made? Wow, what a punishment.

How can you assert this when the government left those loopholes in place, and when Haliburton was found to be in violation (selling dual-use technology in Iraq and selling pulse neutron generators to Libya), we only fined them a couple million dollars (the equivalent of a tap on the wrist), then let them keep doing whatever else they were doing?

I think that your indignation at corruption in the UN is laudable. I think the blind eye you turn to our country's similar actions is hypocritical, particularly in your vituperation toward France.

The problem is that the French told Saddam that the US would not invade because they (the French) would block our actions in the UN. That Saddam was giving them oil vouchers and signing wild contracts surely did not influence this. (sarcasm)

Ya know, when you answer a dozen posts at once it is difficult to answer them. You might want to make your salient points easier to follow by answering posts one at a time.

Were US companies violating the sanctions too? yes it is obvious they were. Will they be punished? I certainly hope so. if they are NOT, then it would be seen as a government approval of their actions. Want to bet that no French company will be punished by the French government? Now, did the US government, or more importantly, the Bush administration know what these companies were doing? I doubt it. They did not know what was going on at Enron either until it was too late. Corporate operations in other countries are not monitored by our government.

The problem is that the French told Saddam that the US would not invade because they (the French) would block our actions in the UN. That Saddam was giving them oil vouchers and signing wild contracts surely did not influence this. (sarcasm)

Right, and again, I ask for your evidence that "the French told Saddam that the US would not invade". Until you post it, this is just more demagoguergy on your part.

Ya know, when you answer a dozen posts at once it is difficult to answer them. You might want to make your salient points easier to follow by answering posts one at a time.

I do answer them one at a time. I just do the line by line. If you can't find my huge posts, then you're not looking very hard.

Were US companies violating the sanctions too? yes it is obvious they were. Will they be punished? I certainly hope so. if they are NOT, then it would be seen as a government approval of their actions.

I've already made the distinction that fining them an insignificant amount of money isn't punishment. It's empirically proven that even when we knew about Halliburton's activities, we only fined them a small amount of money. That's tacit approval.

Want to bet that no French company will be punished by the French government?

Please post the historical data that shows that the French don't ever punish their companies. Or is this more warrantless hate that you're pushing here? Try evidence...it's the only thing you've got to convince me with, because given the previous thread we disagreed in, your credibility is a little lacking.

Now, did the US government, or more importantly, the Bush administration know what these companies were doing? I doubt it. They did not know what was going on at Enron either until it was too late. Corporate operations in other countries are not monitored by our government.

So the government didn't know that Halliburton was doing business in Iraq, Libya and Iran? That's hardly true. And your assertion that our government didn't know but the French government did strikes me as ever-so-slightly ridiculous, given the utter hatred you seem to have for the French. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. You may be right. But I want some evidence of this before I believe it (evidence from a credible source that our government didn't know what was going on and the French government did). The challenge is there. Put up or shut up.

PS: I noticed you drop the whole line about how Kofi Annan's son was personally benefitting...care to explain why?

However:
parts for weapons systems != WMD

Well, WMDPARTa + WMDPARTb == WMD

Well the sanctions against Iraq were brought to the UNSC by the US/UK. Thought up by the clever masterminds in Washington who thought the people of Iraq would rise up and riot against their oppressive dictator. That did not work. Instead, they silently suffered and died. Now this is the newest spin to the war: it was humanitarian to do it because the (US/UK) sanctions before the war were too harsh on them. Woah guess what, people wanted to have them lifted and replaced with less strict regulations. But nooo, the US/UK would not want anything of that.




1. What? I seem to remember everyone being behind the sanctions. In fact whenever anything happens, it's always sanctions.

2. The clever "masterminds" would already have noticed that people rose up before the sanctions were in place, and it didn't work. And I'm sure they noticed too that they weren't working over the course of more than a decade.

3. Who wanted them lifted. Syria. Well if syria says it, it must be the right thing to do.

4. What do you mean less strict? You mean you didn't want any sanctions at all? Just say that then. Admit it, you were all for the sanction method until I brought their failure up. In fact I'll bet just yesterday you were telling people that "we should have given sanctions more time to work."

5. THE UN WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE SANCTIONS ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE COWARDS WHO CONDEMN US NOW FOR TRYING TO MAKE THINGS BETTER. The reason why they ended up being put in place because no-one had the courage at that time to actually topple Hussein themselves, but on the other hand Iraq kept on invading others and gassing people, so what could be done. As I said total abneigtion of moral culpability. Had the US/UK gone it alone back then with just kuwait, we'd of had to topple hussein, instead of accepting the "compromise" of sanctions that the rest of the world was complicit with.

6. Despite your name calling, you still have not refuted the essential point. The rest of the world was satisfied with sanctions and were therefore complicit in the deaths of Iraqi children. The rest of the world has not gone along with US policy now. They were free to ignore the sanctions if the wished and feed as many Iraqi's as they could. The US/UK never said that food could not be given to Iraq. The only thing the rest of the world did was conspire to smuggle cigarettes, german autos and weapons to the Iraqi elites. Now they condemn the US for making things better. Shame on the rest of the world, they conspired to exploit Iraqis far more than the US ever did.

Even if it were accepted that there was a better there alternative, no-one came up with it, and no-one else in the world tried. How does that make the US the bad guy. At least it did something. Let me ask you this, if you see someone bleeding do you refuse to treat them because you are not a doctor when none are available, even if they will bleed to death. Because that is equivalent to what you are suggesting.



The US is a lieing, cheating, bastard rogue nation devoid of any moral highground. And I am tired of jingoistic crap being flung around to justify the war. It's the modern disaster of the US, Bush is responsible for it and I chuckle as the US government rapidly flap their arms, trying to gain some ground. It's just pathetic but so fitting for an arrogant people who think they are god's gift to mankind.

At least you finally admitted that you are in fact anti-american. That I can respect, it's your viewpoint after all and you are entitled to it. I just wish you had the intellectual honest to admit that these are the feelings that compel you to attack the US instead, of justifying your attacks with moral outrage about US purported "attrocities' and lack of respect for human life. Stop pretending that your condemnation of the US is based upon its actions. The truth is whatever the US did you would hate us because you think only that "the US is a lieing, cheating, bastard rogue nation devoid of any moral highground."

You have done nothing to disprove that the current Iraq situation is more just than the sanctions era except dissimulate about the origins of the sanctions themselves. You have done nothing to demonstrate that the US is the bloody- thirsty tyrant you claim it to be. In fact the US is spending billions to restore Iraq for its people, and will go home afterwards. If you really cared about Iraqis you would campaign for your nation to accept what's done is done, and actually help in the rebuilding (actually building since the former government did not give a shit about its people.) This you will not do, because you do not really care about improving the situation in Iraq, you only care about your hated of the US.

If the US is so wrong, why not try to come up with a better alternative. If you think the situation is intolerable why not try to fix it. Wouldn't that be more productive than trying to defend the even more intolerable status quo that exisited before. Believe me, if there is a better way to go forward, (and I mean really a better way, not ditch the chimp or nuke republicans,) then we would love to hear it. Even John Kerry can't think of one. No-one can.

Whatever the polemics surrounding the war are, whatever the reasons for starting it, it is undisputed that it is better for the Iraqi's than during the sanctions. Therefore if not perfectly just, it was at least more just. And that hardly makes the US the Fascist state you claim it to be.

Like all people with an unreasoned hatred: you criticize, and assume that your are perfectly just; you condemn, and assume that you are morally justifiec; and you despise, but imagine your invective to be fully justified.

Well as I have proved, the US does not have the"blood on its hands", if anything the opposite. The rest of the world does. Who therefore is the arrogant one?

You are wrong, and have done nothing to proove that the world was better off before the war in Iraq. All you have done is slander the people of the US. You wouldn't like it if people did that the the citizens of your country - which I assume is germany, so it would be all too easy if I wanted.

Right, and again, I ask for your evidence that "the French told Saddam that the US would not invade". Until you post it, this is just more demagoguergy on your part.

Not demogoguery at all. Saddam and Chirac have a close personal relationship. The ONLY time Saddam left Iraq after taking power was to go to Paris and visit Chirac. Thats when Chirac, as prime minister sold Saddam two nuclear reactors. Remember what happened to those in 1981? The two had a close personal relationship. The French told Saddam that they would block the US in the security council and veto any action the US took against Iraq there. They did indeed threaten to veto the vote calling for military action so the vote was not called and we invaded without it.

I've already made the distinction that fining them an insignificant amount of money isn't punishment. It's empirically proven that even when we knew about Halliburton's activities, we only fined them a small amount of money. That's tacit approval.

Well, other than fines there is not really much they can do. What do you do? You stop them from doing it again and you fine them. These corporations are so large and employ so many people, putting them out of business is not the answer. I guess you could haul the President of the company to jail, but I think you will find that the decisions are made in and carried out by a foreign HQ of the company and not in the US.

Please post the historical data that shows that the French don't ever punish their companies. Or is this more warrantless hate that you're pushing here? Try evidence...it's the only thing you've got to convince me with, because given the previous thread we disagreed in, your credibility is a little lacking.

I doubt that such things are made public or are available. As most companies in France are nationalised the oil companies are I believe so then it would be the French government punishing itself. How is that going to happen?

So the government didn't know that Halliburton was doing business in Iraq, Libya and Iran? That's hardly true. And your assertion that our government didn't know but the French government did strikes me as ever-so-slightly ridiculous, given the utter hatred you seem to have for the French. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. You may be right. But I want some evidence of this before I believe it (evidence from a credible source that our government didn't know what was going on and the French government did). The challenge is there. Put up or shut up.

I cannot prove a negative....like saying "prove" that you did not know what your dog did while you were not at home.

PS: I noticed you drop the whole line about how Kofi Annan's son was personally benefitting...care to explain why?[/QUOTE]

It has been reported that Koffi Annan's son had a job overseeing the oil for food program and was getting kickbacks from it from the Iraqi's. Plus there are other things he has been caught up in....

http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/msg07877.html

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/19813.htm

*yawn* Lacadaemon, you write endless paragraphs of drivel. Do you honestly expect me to dissect each and every of your useless points? Fact is, Iraq was not a threat, the sanctions were obviously too harsh and hit the wrong people (duh, who would have thought), WMDs did not exist, the UN oil-for-food program may or may not have been corrupt (the UN investigation is still ongoing), former Iraq "officials" and INC members were caught lieing and still are used as sources or considered for high level positions in the new Iraq... It's a pathetic farce.

If the reason for the war had been the humanitarian background, the US could have said so. The UNSC could have made different sanctions which could have improved the situation, all the while keeping UN inspectors in Iraq, which Saddam Hussein permitted into Iraq again after the threat of another US war became obvious. That Iraq is better off now in chaos, flooded with terrorism, remains to be seen. I am not convinced that this is the case nor that democracy can be bombed into this country out of nowhere. Unfortunately it seems to me that especially the US constantly fall for this "with us or die" mentality. If Iraq fails, the country will be in shambles and civil war. The only other option to prevent this is to keep it occupied for years, while terrorism continues to increase to previously unseen levels. Many thanks for that, United States of America.

At least you finally admitted that you are in fact anti-american. That I can respect, it's your viewpoint after all and you are entitled to it. I just wish you had the intellectual honest to admit that these are the feelings that compel you to attack the US instead, of justifying your attacks with moral outrage about US purported "attrocities' and lack of respect for human life. Stop pretending that your condemnation of the US is based upon its actions. The truth is whatever the US did you would hate us because you think only that "the US is a lieing, cheating, bastard rogue nation devoid of any moral highground."

You have to forgive him. He was born in and lived in the former East Germany. You remember the place. That bastion of freedom where the female olympic athletes had bigger testicles than their male teammates. ;)

Yes, East Germany was such a great place. So great in fact that he would not even be able to access the internet for fear that he might be "corrupted" by our evil western ways.

Not demogoguery at all. Saddam and Chirac have a close personal relationship. The ONLY time Saddam left Iraq after taking power was to go to Paris and visit Chirac. Thats when Chirac, as prime minister sold Saddam two nuclear reactors. Remember what happened to those in 1981? The two had a close personal relationship. The French told Saddam that they would block the US in the security council and veto any action the US took against Iraq there. They did indeed threaten to veto the vote calling for military action so the vote was not called and we invaded without it.

Amazing. You document their close relationship. Saddam and Rummy had a close relationship too, as did Saddam and Reagan. Then, after providing NO evidence that France assured Saddam there would be no invasion (other than the fact that France threatened to veto in the UN, which has nothing to do with "assuring Saddam"), you proceed to restate your claim. You answered none of my arguments and then act as if you had. I'm guessing this means you're back to the unwarranted garbage you posted in the last thread.

Well, other than fines there is not really much they can do. What do you do? You stop them from doing it again and you fine them. These corporations are so large and employ so many people, putting them out of business is not the answer. I guess you could haul the President of the company to jail, but I think you will find that the decisions are made in and carried out by a foreign HQ of the company and not in the US.

So what exactly should the French do to punish their companies? Are you on top of when the French government fines its companies? I doubt it. And hence, it's all buggery on your part again. As for saying the decisions are made outside of the US, how is it that you know they're not made outside of France as well? Or are you just engaging in mindless hatred of the French cause you think it seems like the conservative thing to do?

I doubt that such things are made public or are available. As most companies in France are nationalised the oil companies are I believe so then it would be the French government punishing itself. How is that going to happen?

Can you provide evidence that all the oil companies in France are nationalized? And can you indicate how that would mean that Chirac was making the decisions? Or do you think that any corruption in any part of the government automatically means the head of the government is liable? That would be a dangerous proposition for Bush, now wouldn't it? And which companies are you saying violated the oil for food program in France? Was it the oil companies? Or weapons companies? Just trying to make sure your position is clear.

I cannot prove a negative....like saying "prove" that you did not know what your dog did while you were not at home.

Thank you for admitting that your arguments are without evidentiary support.

It has been reported that Koffi Annan's son had a job overseeing the oil for food program and was getting kickbacks from it from the Iraqi's. Plus there are other things he has been caught up in....

Yes, and those claims have been refuted by the company that he was supposedly working for as well as an independent commission that investigated it. Now, instead of posting the accusations themselves (which don't answer the fact that he was found innocent), why don't you post something that's responsive to my argument?

http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/msg07877.html

As for this, can you tell me what part of "he wasn't on the board of directors when the contract was awarded" is problematic to you? He didn't disclose his salary. That's the smoking gun this "article" refers to (as far as I can tell). Wow. Amazing investigative reporting. :rolleyes: Biff, you haven't made a decent argument since I started questioning you about this stuff. I guess this'll just turn into another thread where after I've refuted everything you have to say, you turn around and claim that you were just stringing us along, eh?

Look, all this shows is two things that most people over the world have had clear for a very long time:

1. The US and most European governments are colonialist powers intent in grabbing as much power, wealth, and resources from other countries as they possibly can.

2. These countries (that we will call 'powerful' for lack of a better term) are unwilling and incapable of caring or planning for the solution of global problems.

This means that efforts like the UN are condemned to failiure because of their dependance on the powerful countries' willingness to act. And, of course, powerful countries won't give away any of their power to allow the world to come up with democratic and global solutions.

I'd rather see powerful countries stay away from any other regions (including impossing trade and financial exchange) and let those develop locally, for better or worse.

I'd rather trust countries like Indonesia, Brazil and Kenya with the direction of a global body than the likes of the US or Europe.

You have to forgive him. He was born in and lived in the former East Germany. You remember the place. That bastion of freedom where the female olympic athletes had bigger testicles than their male teammates. ;)

Yes, East Germany was such a great place. So great in fact that he would not even be able to access the internet for fear that he might be "corrupted" by our evil western ways.
Well back then, there was no internet and I was too young to be affected by the ideologies of the former East German government. You rightwing nutjob, neocon nazi posse capitalist pig.

Take it easy, guys. No need to go that far...

You have to forgive him. He was born in and lived in the former East Germany. You remember the place. That bastion of freedom where the female olympic athletes had bigger testicles than their male teammates. ;)

Yes, East Germany was such a great place. So great in fact that he would not even be able to access the internet for fear that he might be "corrupted" by our evil western ways.

Do tell Biff, what state of the Union were you born in?

Considering what city Gigatron is from, can anyone really blame him for how he feels?

*yawn* Lacadaemon, you write endless paragraphs of drivel. Do you honestly expect me to dissect each and every of your useless points? Fact is, Iraq was not a threat, the sanctions were obviously too harsh and hit the wrong people (duh, who would have thought), WMDs did not exist, the UN oil-for-food program may or may not have been corrupt (the UN investigation is still ongoing), former Iraq "officials" and INC members were caught lieing and still are used as sources or considered for high level positions in the new Iraq... It's a pathetic farce.

If the reason for the war had been the humanitarian background, the US could have said so. The UNSC could have made different sanctions which could have improved the situation, all the while keeping UN inspectors in Iraq, which Saddam Hussein permitted into Iraq again after the threat of another US war became obvious. That Iraq is better off now in chaos, flooded with terrorism, remains to be seen. I am not convinced that this is the case nor that democracy can be bombed into this country out of nowhere. Unfortunately it seems to me that especially the US constantly fall for this "with us or die" mentality. If Iraq fails, the country will be in shambles and civil war. The only other option to prevent this is to keep it occupied for years, while terrorism continues to increase to previously unseen levels. Many thanks for that, United States of America.

You cannot respond because you have no response.

The most you can do is prattle on about WMDs and fictious alterations to the sanctions regime by the UNSC. Do you even know what sanctions are? I gather not from your responses. By definition sanctions always effect a nation's disenfrachised and not the elites. Nor do you seem to know anything about international law. Regardless of sanctions, Iraq should not have been able to import WMD technology. The sanctions were imposed for a reason outside WMD development. WMDs have nothing to do with this. And if you don't think Iraq was a threat, go ask an isreali who has had family members killed by hammas. Funny how there are less suicide bombings now.

You have refuted none of the salient points of my arguments. You merely revert to the same tired talking points, which are irrelevant to the issue in dispute.

As I have said before, if you just hate america say so. Stop pretending your outrage has anything to do with Iraq or "war-crimes"; or that your position is a well considered or knowlegble one.

Terrorism is not on the rise in Iraq to previously unseen levels, unless you discount the hundreds of thousands who died at the hands hussien et al. and Iraqi's are no longer being starved by the UN. This is a good thing.

I fail to see why this is bad for the world, or how it makes the US evil.

Why the war started is a different issue and one that does not effect my overall point.

Try not to loose the plot.

(Is drivel the best you could do, try twaddle, it's more apposite and has more bite I think ;) )

Considering what city Gigatron is from, can anyone really blame him for how he feels?

The US did them a favor!

Just look at all the new building opportunities and all the jobs created from the building.

I guess I will have to use

[/sarcasm]

So the americans don't get offended! :p

You cannot respond because you have no response.

The most you can do is prattle on about WMDs and fictious alterations to the sanctions regime by the UNSC. Do you even know what sanctions are? I gather not from your responses. By definition sanctions always effect a nation's disenfrachised and not the elites. Nor do you seem to know anything about international law. Regardless of sanctions, Iraq should not have been able to import WMD technology. The sanctions were imposed for a reason outside WMD development. WMDs have nothing to do with this. And if you don't think Iraq was a threat, go ask an isreali who has had family members killed by hammas. Funny how there are less suicide bombings now.

You have refuted none of the salient points of my arguments. You merely revert to the same tired talking points, which are irrelevant to the issue in dispute.

As I have said before, if you just hate america say so. Stop pretending your outrage has anything to do with Iraq or "war-crimes"; or that your position is a well considered or knowlegble one.

Terrorism is not on the rise in Iraq to previously unseen levels, unless you discount the hundreds of thousands who died at the hands hussien et al. and Iraqi's are no longer being starved by the UN. This is a good thing.

I fail to see why this is bad for the world, or how it makes the US evil.

Why the war started is a different issue and one that does not effect my overall point.

Try not to loose the plot.

(Is drivel the best you could do, try twaddle, it's more apposite and has more bite I think ;) )
Sure.. terrorism is not on the rise in Iraq. Hahaha.. "Duck and Cover"... *sings along the propaganda* Yes master. You are right. I submit to your endless wisdom. Roflmao. Neocon propaganda victim.

You have to forgive him. He was born in and lived in the former East Germany. You remember the place. That bastion of freedom where the female olympic athletes had bigger testicles than their male teammates. ;)

Yes, East Germany was such a great place. So great in fact that he would not even be able to access the internet for fear that he might be "corrupted" by our evil western ways.


Yeah, but I'm not going to sink to his level. I don't hate germans. I don't even think about them that much. Did go there once though, talk about conformity. I gotta say if I lived in a nation that only had one personality for everybody I would have chosen a better one.

Still I could of asked him when the last time was he heard of someone being dragged out of a car, dowsed with gasoline and set on fire because he was turkish. I hear that's quite the national pastime over there these days. I like the way he called you a Nazi too. Sort of Ironic really. :)

Sure.. terrorism is not on the rise in Iraq. Hahaha.. "Duck and Cover"... *sings along the propaganda* Yes master. You are right. I submit to your endless wisdom. Roflmao. Neocon propaganda victim.

Can you even read? Stop parsing things out robot, and think for yourself. I said that's the view because you discount the behavior of saddam et al.

Funny thing, THE US IS NOT RUNNING RAPE ROOMS IN IRAQ AS WE SPEAK.

Or do you consider the actions of the Hussien administration not terror?

And for the last time I AM NOT A NEO CON, you don't even know what it means.

Can you even read? Stop parsing things out robot, and think for yourself. I said that's the view because you discount the behavior of saddam et al.

Funny thing, THE US IS NOT RUNNING RAPE ROOMS IN IRAQ AS WE SPEAK.

Or do you consider the actions of the Hussien administration not terror?

And for the last time I AM NOT A NEO CON, you don't even know what it means.
I am not the robot here, neocon nazi puppet. Oh noes, I called him Nazi. Shame on meh.

I am not the robot here, neocon nazi puppet. Oh noes, I called him Nazi. Shame on meh.

For all you know, moron, I could be a holocaust suvivor. Or maybe members of my family were murder by those pigs. You are a stupid, ignorant, thoughtless git.

You yet again proove that you are incapable of rational thought.

You are a stupid, stupid person.

Biff seems to abandoning the discussion too early, so I'll go ahead and take this one on to relieve the boredom.

The most you can do is prattle on about WMDs and fictious alterations to the sanctions regime by the UNSC. Do you even know what sanctions are? I gather not from your responses. By definition sanctions always effect a nation's disenfrachised and not the elites.

Which definition of sanctions is that? This one? A coercive measure adopted usually by several nations acting together against a nation violating international law. Funny, I don't see anything about disenfranchised or elites in that definition. Kinda hard to effect something "by definition" when that something isn't in the actual definition. If you want to be an ass, go for it. Just make sure you don't make any mistakes (or at least be willing to eat your words if you're not right).

Nor do you seem to know anything about international law. Regardless of sanctions, Iraq should not have been able to import WMD technology. The sanctions were imposed for a reason outside WMD development. WMDs have nothing to do with this. And if you don't think Iraq was a threat, go ask an isreali who has had family members killed by hammas. Funny how there are less suicide bombings now.

It's also somewhat funny that the Israelis don't credit Saddam's removal from power with the decrease. It's also funny that in the past few days there's been a rash of bombings that have been targeted at Israelis abroad. If Saddam's removal was the impetus, it shouldn't matter where the people are, right?

As for Iraq being a threat, this may be true, but is functionally a "no duh". Every country is a threat if they want to be. You can get killed just as dead by someone hitting you in the head with a rock as by a suicide bomber. Just because someone is a potential threat is not a justification for doing whatever we want, particularly from a realist geopolitical perspective.

As I have said before, if you just hate america say so. Stop pretending your outrage has anything to do with Iraq or "war-crimes"; or that your position is a well considered or knowlegble one.

I have a very well considered and knowledgeable position. I also happen to live in America. I'm disgusted with a wide array of policies of this current (and former) administrations. I think the war on Iraq was a fraud, perpetrated for personal and economic reasons, and foisted on the world by someone who didn't have the willingness to be honest about the motivations for doing so.

Terrorism is not on the rise in Iraq to previously unseen levels, unless you discount the hundreds of thousands who died at the hands hussien et al. and Iraqi's are no longer being starved by the UN. This is a good thing.

Yes, people not dying is a good thing. But lots of people are still dying. Not to mention if Iraq collapses into civil war (which is very possible, given our intervention), it could trigger something far worse than Saddam Hussein. Additionally, the prospects for Iraqi democracy are far from being what US leadership would have us believe. Our forces are cutting deals left and right with regional factions to try and provide security for the country. The divisions those policies are fostering will not just disappear once they have elections, and if you think they will, you've been duped. There's a long, hard road ahead of Iraq and it's FAR from certain how it will end. Is it good that Saddam isn't killing people anymore? Yes. Does that justify the manner in which he was ousted and the manner in which reconstruction was undertaken? No.

I fail to see why this is bad for the world, or how it makes the US evil.

I've explained that.

Why the war started is a different issue and one that does not effect my overall point.

Not if the reasons for the war become a reason why reconstruction can't happen effectively. If other countries contribute less to the stability of Iraq because they don't think we're trustworthy, you're damn wrong about the reason the war started affecting whether things turn out well or poorly.

Hey guys tone it down a bit.

Debate fun. Name calling not so fun.

InfiniteResponsibility. I certainly enjoy reading your well informed posts. Keep up the good work. ;)

Funny thing, THE US IS NOT RUNNING RAPE ROOMS IN IRAQ AS WE SPEAK.
Your sure about that? Afterall they had torture chambers for their own amusement.

Check out the UN website. It lists all current peacekeeping missions.

I was going to state Bosnia and Rwanda as some examples, but I'd rather say owned. So...

0WN3D!

Iran-Contra was a brilliant stroke. We sold the Iranians advanced weapons systems at top dollar prices, but no spare parts. Within 6 months not one of those systems was still operational. To this day Iran is trying to get the parts they need to fly their F-14's. Taking the money they paid, we bought small arms on the open market and supplied a rebel group that wanted to bring democracy to their country. They did so and their country is much better off today because of it. So what you see as some bad thing turned out pretty good. Swindle Iran to crate stability somewhere else.

All you really needed to do was reorginize the Sandonistas. At least they weren't as bad as that regime before them. Oh, and those rebels? They were actually just the remaining soldiers of the evil regime before the Sandonistas. Although, as long as Iran doesn't have any weapons, we're good. I just hope Canada take part if there's a war there. Damn Iranians, killing a reporter.

I was "debating" for want of a better word gigatron, and mostly just to work him up because all he does is spout the same tired stuff, but I'll happily continue with you as you actually do raise salient points.





Which definition of sanctions is that? This one? A coercive measure adopted usually by several nations acting together against a nation violating international law. Funny, I don't see anything about disenfranchised or elites in that definition. Kinda hard to effect something "by definition" when that something isn't in the actual definition. If you want to be an ass, go for it. Just make sure you don't make any mistakes (or at least be willing to eat your words if you're not right).



I apologize I was imprecise with my use of words. My argument is this: Whenever econmic sanctions are imposed upon a nation, its is the disenfranchised of that state that are, ceteris parabis, least able to protect themselves from any concominant disruption in the availablity of food, medical etc. This is clearly evidenced by the estimated 1.5 million deaths that UN sanctions caused in Iraq. I should have made myself clearer, I will try to be more precise, however that does not alter the central fact. The UN endorces sanctions of Iraq were far crueller than he current situation, at least if you are on the lowest, and most powerless rungs, of Iraqi society.

And generally whenever economic sanctions are imposed, by their nature (which is what I meant), they are bound to effect those least able to influnce national policies. The only time sanctions can ever realisitically hope to impose change from within a nation is cases where it is a functioning democracy. Examine the situation in North Korea, the ultra elite, who effectively have absolute control over the direction of the nation's policy direction live lifestyles that Bill Gates would envy. Meanwhile the average people starve.

Sanctions (at least economic ones) are always doomed to failure when applied to a corrupt authoritarian system. More pertinent however, is that not only are they doomed to fail but, if recent experience is any guide, they also inflict at least as much, if not a great deal more, suffering for the innocent civilian population. Thus I find sanctions morally reprehensible in general. They are better suited for settling trade disputes that changing the policies of dictatorships.

Therefore, in light of the conditions in Iraq pre US invasion, I consider the US's actions to ultimately just, despite any disagreement over the initial reason for war. World policy, in general, sought a solution to the Iraq situation, and had done so since gulf war I through sanctions. By invading, the US transferred the suffering caused by international policy, from the Iraqi underclass to the elites who set policy (in general). Thus, even if this was an unitended consequence, I find US policy to be more in accord with my view of human rights.

Does that clear it up.


It's also somewhat funny that the Israelis don't credit Saddam's removal from power with the decrease. It's also funny that in the past few days there's been a rash of bombings that have been targeted at Israelis abroad. If Saddam's removal was the impetus, it shouldn't matter where the people are, right?

I never argued that the Isreali's credited the removal of Saddam with the reduction in bombings. But there has been one. And are you suggesting that the de-funding of hamas does not decrease their ability to conduct bombings. Clearly it does,

As for Iraq being a threat, this may be true, but is functionally a "no duh". Every country is a threat if they want to be. You can get killed just as dead by someone hitting you in the head with a rock as by a suicide bomber. Just because someone is a potential threat is not a justification for doing whatever we want, particularly from a realist geopolitical perspective.

I never made the argument that it was a threat. I argued that Sanctions had been imposed on Iraq for a variety of reasons, and in the eyes of the world these sanctions were justified. Clearly Iraq was therefore doing something that the world judged reprehensible. No one apart from a few human rights groups ever really called for the lifting of these sanctions, so frankly the situation was never going to change. Therefore the Iraqi underclass were trapped in a human rights limbo and starving to death. I cannot condone this as a rational policy. As far as I am concerned, with hidsight the war is justified because it is a better solution to the Iraq problem than the one that was in place - even if this was not the stated aim.

I never claimed that the US policy was perfect, my claim was that it was better than the one that was in place at the UN previously. Therefore I also claimed that all the screaming about the US being evil and blood-thirsty is groundless and, if anything, the world community who now condemns the US for its invasion have just as much blood on their hands, if not more, for their complicity in the sanctions.



I have a very well considered and knowledgeable position. I also happen to live in America. I'm disgusted with a wide array of policies of this current (and former) administrations. I think the war on Iraq was a fraud, perpetrated for personal and economic reasons, and foisted on the world by someone who didn't have the willingness to be honest about the motivations for doing so.

I believe that you have a well considered and knowledgeable position. Gigatron does not. His main thesis is you are all neo-con nazi bloodsucking scumbags etc. That is what I took issue with.

I am not convinced that the war was a total fraud as you characterized it however. I believe that reasonable people can differ about the timing and priorities - I happen to agree with it but I acknowldege that such positions can be rationally taken - but it was going to have to be fought at somepoint due to the anguish the sanctions were causing. Eventually somebody would have had to invade to topple the house of hussien. The real issue I think is the timing and the putative reasons offered for it. Which I admit can be debated, although ultimatley I believe it was still the right thing to do.


Yes, people not dying is a good thing. But lots of people are still dying. Not to mention if Iraq collapses into civil war (which is very possible, given our intervention), it could trigger something far worse than Saddam Hussein. Additionally, the prospects for Iraqi democracy are far from being what US leadership would have us believe. Our forces are cutting deals left and right with regional factions to try and provide security for the country. The divisions those policies are fostering will not just disappear once they have elections, and if you think they will, you've been duped. There's a long, hard road ahead of Iraq and it's FAR from certain how it will end. Is it good that Saddam isn't killing people anymore? Yes. Does that justify the manner in which he was ousted and the manner in which reconstruction was undertaken? No.

The only reason that it would collapse into civil war is if the US abandons it.

Look, at a most fundamental level, we could either invade or not. People were dying like flies over there. Over and above the hundereds of thousands the regime "liquidated" and those that were mutilated or raped, 50,000 children under five were starving to death every year. The situation was not going to get any better and no-one really considered that lifting the sanctions as an option. This could have gone on for another forty years. Overall, there are a lot less people dying now. And for a change at least we are now targeting the guilty, not the weak and innocent.

Also, whenever the war would have happened - because eventually it would - there would have been a risk of civil war. In fact, even had sanctions been sucessful and toppled the regime (which never would have happened) the same risk would have been there; it is inherent in the structure of Iraq. The civil war argument is a non sequitur. You might as well blame the US for the weather.And if it was such an obvious risk how come no-one brought it up until about six months ago.

If, for example, sanctions had toppled Hussein and caused civil war would you criticize the UN for imposing them?

If anyone is to blame for any potential for civil war in Iraq, it is the europeans who miguidedly drew lines on maps eighty years ago.

Not if the reasons for the war become a reason why reconstruction can't happen effectively. If other countries contribute less to the stability of Iraq because they don't think we're trustworthy, you're damn wrong about the reason the war started affecting whether things turn out well or poorly.

Other nations are not contributing anyway. Mostly they just snipe at the current Iraq administration for being "puppets".

Anyway other nations contributing was never on the table so I don't think it's salient. Unless you are suggesting that they will actively undermine the reconstruction of Iraq because they don't trust the US? Well if that's the case they're no better than criminals themselves. Yes disagree, yes disent, that is their right as independant soveriegns, but to actively try to sabotage Iraq's future because they dislike the US, that would be despicable and in that case I don't believe they would have helped whatever the reasons for war could have been.

I resent you calling me an ass. I was acting like an ass because I was arguing with gigatron and he deserves it. Please try to pick your words more carefully .I did not call you an ass.

So everyone involved was corrupt. Well I feel great now. :rolleyes:

Did you really think they wouldn't be?

Iraq was not an ALLY in the 80's, it was the lesser of two evils. You seem to think that Saddam and the US were really good buddies....nothing was further from the truth. We USED Saddam as a surrogate to fight the Iranians. much like the Arabs use the Palestinians to fight Israel.
Ahhh so the US USED Saddam to get back at Iran, and also gave him WMD, and US intelligence, money, etc. :eek:

Ally:

1. transitive and intransitive verb join in mutually supportive association: to join, or enlist somebody, in an association with one or more other states, organizations, or individuals for mutual help and support or the achievement of a common purpose

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism.

The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan.

There is much more there but that should suffice for now.

Those "drug runners" now have freedom and a democratically elected government.
Yeah and those drugs ended up on the streets of America.


However, none of that has ANYTHING to do with this scandal that if all goes well, will utterly destroy the UN. One can only hope. ;)

Yeah destroy what you will for the sake of what?

Yeah, I see the "stroke of brillance" in your thinking, and that of the Republican Party of both eras.

that lacadaemon guy is a genius. no-one can refute him n00bs