NationStates Jolt Archive

It has recently been reported that Saddam Hussein was able to "subvert" the $60 billion U.N. program to generate an estimated $2 billion in revenue outside U.N. control from 1997-2003, and perhaps as much as $11 billion since 1990.
The report further alleges that nations such as France, Russia, and China were in effect paid off by this scheme, making it impossible to get the security council to act against Iraq breaking UN resolutions.

(http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20041011/a_embargoqna11.art.htm)

Does this change your opinion of how the UN conducted it's business with Saddam's Iraq prior to the March 2003 invasion?

This is NOT a debate on if the invasion was legal, etc. Please keep it to just the UN's role pre-invasion.

i didnt read the link but i thought what you said was common knowlege.

your poll didnt give me an option for "no that doesnt change my opinion, we shouldnt have invaded iraq in the first place"

that member countries of the UN had "secret" (secret only to YOU) reasons for not wanting to upset their economic applecarts does not make them WRONG to oppose our invasion of iraq

they vote THEIR best interest, we vote OURS, thats how it works. there was no reason for them to vote against their economic interests since there was no credible evidence that iraq had to be invaded right then.

when we decide to invade a country that has never done anything to us, we have to expect some oppostion. that there are complicated reasons for opposing us should be taken for granted.

fine... lets not talk about the ILEGAL Invasion.Er... at least be polite about hijacking someone's topic.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

fine... lets not talk about the ILEGAL Invasion.

even if it was...
ILEGAL

First, do you mean "illegal"?
Second, if you don't like my wordings, go make your own poll.

The report further alleges that nations such as France, Russia, and China were in effect paid off by this scheme, making it impossible to get the security council to act against Iraq breaking UN resolutions.

If they accepted bribes, they were in the wrong. Not on their positions necessarily, but in that they accepted bribes. I still can't see where Iraq violated the resolutions, there are no WMDs and they weren't being developed. So, while their actions may be ethically reprehensible, legally they were still in the right.

First, do you mean "illegal"?Yes that what i mean...but dont keep saying it...It is Ilegal to say "Illegal" around here :D

Er... at least be polite about hijacking someone's topic.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator
hmmm...ok

Ill delete my first 2 post...and I was on my way out anyways :)

There's always a scandal.

It has recently been reported that Saddam Hussein was able to "subvert" the $60 billion U.N. program to generate an estimated $2 billion in revenue outside U.N. control from 1997-2003, and perhaps as much as $11 billion since 1990.
The report further alleges that nations such as France, Russia, and China were in effect paid off by this scheme, making it impossible to get the security council to act against Iraq breaking UN resolutions.

(http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20041011/a_embargoqna11.art.htm)

Does this change your opinion of how the UN conducted it's business with Saddam's Iraq prior to the March 2003 invasion?

This is NOT a debate on if the invasion was legal, etc. Please keep it to just the UN's role pre-invasion.
France was quite willing to back an invasion of Iraq IF Saddam had refused to allow the UN inspectors back into Iraq (Nov. 2002).

Since that didn't happen, France said no to the US. So your argument is defeated.

France was quite willing to back an invasion of Iraq IF Saddam had refused to allow the UN inspectors back into Iraq (Nov. 2002).

Since that didn't happen, France said no to the US. So your argument is defeated.

What argument? I'm asking for opinions here.

What argument? I'm asking for opinions here.

The report further alleges that nations such as France, Russia, and China were in effect paid off by this scheme, making it impossible to get the security council to act against Iraq breaking UN resolutions.
The allegation is that France would not support a UN action against Iraq because it had been paid off. Since France would have supported UN action IF Saddam had refused to allow the UN inspectors back into Iraq, then this argument is toast?

BTW, US companies were also included in that "allegation" but were not named at the time of the report. Well they have been named now:

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_ID=5067

U.S. firms and individuals received from Saddam's government vouchers, which allowed them buy Iraqi oil under the UN-run oil-for-food program.

A recently released report by the chief US weapons inspector in Iraq, Charles Duelfer, mentioned beneficiaries of the program from a several countries, but not the U.S., due to U.S. privacy laws, The New York Times reported. Iraq Survey Group compiled the report.

However, the U.S. names were mentioned in copies of the report that were handed to Congress and the White House, and which were shown to the Times, the newspaper said.

The report found that Chevron, Mobil, Texaco and Bay Oil, all U.S. firms, as well as three U.S. individuals, among which is Oscar S. Wyatt Jr., were allotted 111 million barrels of oil, The Times reported.

The U.S. Treasury Department launched a probe to know whether those companies and individuals sought authorization from the U.S. government to bid on contracts under the oil-for-food program.

Duelfer's report said the deals had been made under the UN oil-for-food program, which started in 1996 to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of a UN oil embargo imposed in the wake of Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

The program allowed selling Iraqi oil under the condition that the proceeds buy food and medicine for impoverished Iraqis.

I'd be more concerned about the chemical weapons the US sold to Iraq in the 1980s. Americans. :rolleyes:

Americans. :rolleyes:

Oh we know you love us!

LMAO! No.

Uhh, I didn't sell the weapons, so you might want to take that up with Reagan.

No, in a democracy, the politicians represent the will of the people, and more than in any other system of government, the nation is collectively responsible for its actions. In foreign policy, it is not simply Reagan, Clinton or Bush who does something - America does it. Thus some degree criticism is fair.


America sold Iraq chemical weapons while it was using them to gas Kurds.


Rumsfeld for example was directly involved, but ultimately it was America that did it. I do not believe it unreasonable to point out this fact, especially as it is one which so many people try so hard to ignore.

The allegation is that France would not support a UN action against Iraq because it had been paid off. Since France would have supported UN action IF Saddam had refused to allow the UN inspectors back into Iraq, then this argument is toast?

BTW, US companies were also included in that "allegation" but were not named at the time of the report. Well they have been named now:

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_ID=5067

U.S. firms and individuals received from Saddam's government vouchers, which allowed them buy Iraqi oil under the UN-run oil-for-food program.

A recently released report by the chief US weapons inspector in Iraq, Charles Duelfer, mentioned beneficiaries of the program from a several countries, but not the U.S., due to U.S. privacy laws, The New York Times reported. Iraq Survey Group compiled the report.

However, the U.S. names were mentioned in copies of the report that were handed to Congress and the White House, and which were shown to the Times, the newspaper said.

The report found that Chevron, Mobil, Texaco and Bay Oil, all U.S. firms, as well as three U.S. individuals, among which is Oscar S. Wyatt Jr., were allotted 111 million barrels of oil, The Times reported.

The U.S. Treasury Department launched a probe to know whether those companies and individuals sought authorization from the U.S. government to bid on contracts under the oil-for-food program.

Duelfer's report said the deals had been made under the UN oil-for-food program, which started in 1996 to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of a UN oil embargo imposed in the wake of Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

The program allowed selling Iraqi oil under the condition that the proceeds buy food and medicine for impoverished Iraqis.

I'm still asking for opinions, not making allegations. The allegation is being made by the investigators.

Okay, so does THAT effect what you think about how the UN handled things pre-invasion?

I'm still asking for opinions, not making allegations. The allegation is being made by the investigators.

Okay, so does THAT effect what you think about how the UN handled things pre-invasion?
Well it appears that you support the allegations by the choices in your poll, especially the number 4 choice?:

"YES, THAT explains it! No *wonder* world opinion is what it is."

So in regards to your question:

"Does this change your opinion of how the UN conducted it's business with Saddam's Iraq prior to the March 2003 invasion?"

My response is:

3. No change, this is just American propaganda.

Which I qualified.

Well it appears that you support the allegations by the choices in your poll, especially the number 4 choice?:

"YES, THAT explains it! No *wonder* world opinion is what it is."

So in regards to your question:

"Does this change your opinion of how the UN conducted it's business with Saddam's Iraq prior to the March 2003 invasion?"

My response is:

3. No change, this is just American propaganda.

Which I qualified.

You seem to get very upset or excitable by the very idea that someone else could have a POV that doesn't match yours on this topic. :)

That's all well and fine. As an American, I'm not apt to make #3 look much worse than that, eh?
At least #4 wasn't: Well that explains why the Frogs, Krauts and Russkies did nothing. ;)

Uhh, I didn't sell the weapons, so you might want to take that up with Reagan.
The Iraqui kid with amputated Arms...did not personally gas the Kurds either...so we did take that up with Saddam...

Wait...actually we did take it up with anybody or anything in our path :mp5: