NationStates Jolt Archive

They have jsut released a report (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051027/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_oil_for_food) listing several corporations involved in this scheme in which Saddam managed to skim $1.8 Billion off the top of oil contracts, thus circumventing international agreements.


My response as a Canadian?

Meh - you want me to get outraged over a piddly $1.8 Billion over 12 years when the US has ripped us off to the tune of over $5 Billion in less than 5 years by skimming money off the top of lumber contracts in direct contravention of international agreements?

I mean - hell - according to Condi this week $5B is chump change hardly worth bothering about.

So what's $1.8B?

less than chump change?

So what's $1.8B?

less than chump change?
Habitué Change, my lad.
Anyway, if you saw the thread about European subsidies, then you should know that corruption is only corruption when the corrupt are foriegners.

They have jsut released a report (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051027/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_oil_for_food) listing several corporations involved in this scheme in which Saddam managed to skim $1.8 Billion off the top of oil contracts, thus circumventing international agreements.


My response as a Canadian?

Meh - you want me to get outraged over a piddly $1.8 Billion over 12 years when the US has ripped us off to the tune of over $5 Billion in less than 5 years by skimming money off the top of lumber contracts in direct contravention of international agreements?

I mean - hell - according to Condi this week $5B is chump change hardly worth bothering about.

So what's $1.8B?

less than chump change?


It can probably be said that no one died as a result of the skimming of lumber contracts. People died as a result of skimming Oil for Food money.

*shakes head* hypocrisy only takes you so far before the fat man sings. And it looks like the fat man doesn't plan on singing any time soon. 1.8 Billion? That's it? That's what the oil for food scandal was? Then I guess the theft by America towards Canada is like a super scandal? I mean only two international bodies have ruled in favour of Canada, including the WTO. If you make an agreement stick to it. If you have no intentions of doing so, don't make the agreement, my 7 year old son knows that.

It can probably be said that no one died as a result of the skimming of lumber contracts. People died as a result of skimming Oil for Food money.

But remember, it was the US who was starving the Iraqi people.

It can probably be said that no one died as a result of the skimming of lumber contracts. People died as a result of skimming Oil for Food money.

So then we can safely say by your logic that the sanctions imposed by the USA on Iraq that killed countless thousands upon hundred thousands of Iraqi children should be seen with the same disdain!


As a side note. who exactly died from the oil for food scandal?

*shakes head* hypocrisy only takes you so far before the fat man sings. And it looks like the fat man doesn't plan on singing any time soon. 1.8 Billion? That's it? That's what the oil for food scandal was? Then I guess the theft by America towards Canada is like a super scandal? I mean only two international bodies have ruled in favour of Canada, including the WTO. If you make an agreement stick to it. If you have no intentions of doing so, don't make the agreement, my 7 year old son knows that.

I do not oppose sticking to the agreement.

I like how you only count dead bodies when you can blame the Americans alone. If you have to blame anyone else, you never count the bodies.

The dead Iraqis that could have used the 1.8 billion to stay alive have something to say to you.

It can probably be said that no one died as a result of the skimming of lumber contracts. People died as a result of skimming Oil for Food money.


For starters, I have seen no proof that kickbacks over and above approved contract prices changed the aid available to Joe Average Iraqi during the sanction period.


And second, average that out to $150M per year and consider what that amounts to in budgetary terms for most governments.

The answer?

Diddly.

Frankly, 1.8B over 12 years in government terms is equivalent to raiding the petty cash to cover a haircut. Which isn;t to say that people caught doing so don't get a slap on the wrist, but it's less than what the US is willing to pay every 3 days or so to run that country........

So then we can safely say by your logic that the sanctions imposed by the USA on Iraq that killed countless thousands upon hundred thousands of Iraqi children should be seen with the same disdain!


As a side note. who exactly died from the oil for food scandal?

Ahem. UN sanctions. If they were just US sanctions, I'm sure everyone else in the world would have continued to trade with Iraq.

It might be argued that had the 1.8 billion been available in the form of the missing medicine, etc., that none of the victims of the sanctions would have died.

The dead Iraqis that could have used the 1.8 billion to stay alive have something to say to you.
I'm sure they do, but it's going to be rather difficult.

What with them being, you know, dead.

Ahem. UN sanctions. If they were just US sanctions, I'm sure everyone else in the world would have continued to trade with Iraq.

It might be argued that had the 1.8 billion been available in the form of the missing medicine, etc., that none of the victims of the sanctions would have died.

IT'S THE U.S.'s FAULT!!! LALALALALALALALALALALALA!!!

IT'S THE U.S.'s FAULT!!! LALALALALALALALALALALALA!!!

That's what she keeps saying...

It might be argued that had the 1.8 billion been available in the form of the missing medicine, etc., that none of the victims of the sanctions would have died.


Really?

So.....of the 300,000 or so estimated Iraqi children that Maddie Albright said were a worthwhile cost of sanctions that dies of starvation and disease - you think that 1.8B would have covered it?


$6 each would have made all the difference? What's that? 40 cents each per year to fill their bellies and keep them in medicine?

Really?

So.....of the 300,000 or so estimated Iraqi children that Maddie Albright said were a worthwhile cost of sanctions that dies of starvation and disease - you think that 1.8B would have covered it?

$6 each would have made all the difference? What's that? 40 cents each per year to fill their bellies and keep them in medicine?

We'll never know now, will we? I bet that really assuages people's guilt now, doesn't it?

We keep hearing these ads from charitable organizations on TV that even a few dollars for a vaccination will help save the life of a child.

I guess you never give to those organizations, because meh, what will a few bucks do?

Really?

So.....of the 300,000 or so estimated Iraqi children that Maddie Albright said were a worthwhile cost of sanctions that dies of starvation and disease - you think that 1.8B would have covered it?


$6 each would have made all the difference? What's that? 40 cents each per year to fill their bellies and keep them in medicine?

Going by your numbers, that's $6000 each, not $6.

Going by your numbers, that's $6000 each, not $6.

Probably better than the GDP at the time...

Probably better than the GDP at the time...

But it's much more fun to say the US kills children than a maniacal dictator who bought military equipment from France and Russia, spent countless amounts of money rebuilding his many palaces, and paying off UN officials.

Ahem. UN sanctions.

Oh yes, I recall now, the sanctions that every country wanted to lift except the USA, which is what led to the oil for food scandal. So, perhaps not a scandal at all. Just going over the heads of the US government, I know how dare any country try to help Iraq while the Americans were trying to kill every man, woman and child through starvation.

As a country your day will come, all countries or empires do, I just hope I'm alive to see it!

Going by your numbers, that's $6000 each, not $6.

Doh!

lol, I stand corrected....


Still, I think that Sierra's assertion that this money - assuming it would have wound up in the public purse at all - would have assuaged all of the misery in IRaq is pretty lame.


His people were put into starvation via policy, and a policy that we KNEW was causing rampant death and the official word was that it was worth it. The program could have been expanded to allow more money to get to the people of IRaq while still knowing that Saddam was not suffering personally at all, but it was decided that they were to be the ones to suffer the brunt of the world's displeasure at their leader.


So any notion that IRaqis died only because Saddam failed to act with this money is assinine and patently false.

They died because we let them. Knowingly and with malice aforethought.

Doh!

lol, I stand corrected....

Still, I think that Sierra's assertion that this money - assuming it would have wound up in the public purse at all - would have assuaged all of the misery in IRaq is pretty lame.

His people were put into starvation via policy, and a policy that we KNEW was causing rampant death and the official word was that it was worth it. The program could have been expanded to allow more money to get to the people of IRaq while still knowing that Saddam was not suffering personally at all, but it was decided that they were to be the ones to suffer the brunt of the world's displeasure at their leader.

So any notion that IRaqis died only because Saddam failed to act with this money is assinine and patently false.

They died because we let them. Knowingly and with malice aforethought.

Don't blame the US alone. It was UN sanctions, and the rest of the world went along with it.

Or were Canadians secretly smuggling food to poor Iraqis? I think not.

Don't blame the US alone. It was UN sanctions, and the rest of the world went along with it.

Or were Canadians secretly smuggling food to poor Iraqis? I think not.

The US plus the UK were the only parties against lifting those sactions, ence they stayed in the name of the UN. You may be comfortable ignoring the UN, but others are not.


edit: added the UK as per here (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indexone.htm)

Oh yes, I recall now, the sanctions that every country wanted to lift except the USA, which is what led to the oil for food scandal. So, perhaps not a scandal at all. Just going over the heads of the US government, I know how dare any country try to help Iraq while the Americans were trying to kill every man, woman and child through starvation.

As a country your day will come, all countries or empires do, I just hope I'm alive to see it!

Now the US caused the Oil-For-Food Scandal and not corrupt UN and international officials? I'm so sure that all the kickbacks they were receiving were all in the hopes of "saving the children" from the big bad USA. I'm sure Saddam never spent a penny on himself or to rebuild his military out of his love for his countrymen.

Don't blame the US alone. It was UN sanctions, and the rest of the world went along with it.

Or were Canadians secretly smuggling food to poor Iraqis? I think not.

First, Canada is NOT on the security council , second every country wanted to lift the sanctions, the USA wouldn't let them. Man, look it up!. Your willfull blindness does indeed anger me at times WH!

The US was the only party against lifting those sactions, ence they stayed in the name of the UN. You may be comfortable ignoring the UN, but others are not.
Oh, and none of the other Security Council members could have vetoed the sanctions at the start? I see... :rolleyes:

Doh!

lol, I stand corrected....


Still, I think that Sierra's assertion that this money - assuming it would have wound up in the public purse at all - would have assuaged all of the misery in IRaq is pretty lame.


His people were put into starvation via policy, and a policy that we KNEW was causing rampant death and the official word was that it was worth it. The program could have been expanded to allow more money to get to the people of IRaq while still knowing that Saddam was not suffering personally at all, but it was decided that they were to be the ones to suffer the brunt of the world's displeasure at their leader.


So any notion that IRaqis died only because Saddam failed to act with this money is assinine and patently false.

They died because we let them. Knowingly and with malice aforethought.

Yep, Saddam was the victim. We forced him to spend millions on fluff and not on the people just so we could watch people starve.

First, Canada is NOT on the security council , second every country wanted to lift the sanctions, the USA wouldn't let them. Man, look it up!. Your willfull blindness does indeed anger me at times WH!

Well, if Canada followed its policy of ignoring the UN during humanitarian crises, and bombing offending countries, why didn't Canada airlift food to Iraq in contravention of the sanctions and bomb New York?

Now the US caused the Oil-For-Food Scandal and not corrupt UN and international officials? I'm so sure that all the kickbacks they were receiving were all in the hopes of "saving the children" from the big bad USA. I'm sure Saddam never spent a penny on himself or to rebuild his military out of his love for his countrymen.


No no no.. if those sanctions had not been in place, a complicated sheme like the Oil-for-food would have not be necessary, or at least it could be made alot simpler in a fashion that would made corrupting it more difficult

First, Canada is NOT on the security council , second every country wanted to lift the sanctions, the USA wouldn't let them. Man, look it up!. Your willfull blindness does indeed anger me at times WH!

And how many of those same countries were selling Iraq military equipment that was forbidden to them? (Russia, France, Germany....)

Any excuse to blame the US.

Well, if Canada followed its policy of ignoring the UN during humanitarian crises, and bombing offending countries, why didn't Canada airlift food to Iraq in contravention of the sanctions and bomb New York?

Strawman - you're not baiting me into this. Nice feeble attempt though.

Oh, and none of the other Security Council members could have vetoed the sanctions at the start? I see... :rolleyes:

When those sanctions were put in place, no one foresaw that they would kill half a million iraquis.

No no no.. if those sanctions had not been in place, a complicated sheme like the Oil-for-food would have not be necessary, or at least it could be made alot simpler in a fashion that would made corrupting it more difficult

So you know of a way to design a UN program so that it can't be corrupted?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

No no no.. if those sanctions had not been in place, a complicated sheme like the Oil-for-food would have not be necessary, or at least it could be made alot simpler in a fashion that would made corrupting it more difficult

But they were in place w/ the full approval of the UN and member nations.

When those sanctions were put in place, no one foresaw that they would kill half a million iraquis.

Or maybe it was more Saddam taking all the money that did it.

Oh, right, the US forced him to withhold it.

Don't blame the US alone. It was UN sanctions, and the rest of the world went along with it.

Or were Canadians secretly smuggling food to poor Iraqis? I think not.


Way to skirt the truth.

Lloyd Axeworthy tried repeatedly to discussion sanction relaxation with the US and was rebuffed. But no, Canada did not violate international law to skirt the UN rules on sanctions.

And "the rest of the world" doesn't get a veto on SC resolutions, nor are they stupid enough to individually try and go up agains the US and 'do something about it' by breaking international law.

But when the renewal last came up in 2001, You had to buy Russia off with $200 million in extra oil contracts before they voted with you.

Indeed, many countries pressed for relaxed sanctions over the course of the 90s and into the new millenia, but the US and UK stood firm in ther repeated statements that they would use their veto to shoot down any attempt to have them lifted.


Sorry, but pretending that this was a universally accepted program is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

I wonder how Saddam could afford to pay for that Thompson-CSF radar network with all of the sanctions in place....

Oh I see. The French loaned him billions of francs, gave him the radar network, installed it for him, and then he promised to pay them back after the sanctions were lifted.

Guess they didn't get their money back, eh? Maybe that's why the French are so upset. That, and the radar network was blown up completely over the course of a few days...

I wonder how Saddam could afford to pay for that Thompson-CSF radar network with all of the sanctions in place....

Oh I see. The French loaned him billions of francs, gave him the radar network, installed it for him, and then he promised to pay them back after the sanctions were lifted.

Guess they didn't get their money back, eh? Maybe that's why the French are so upset. That, and the radar network was blown up completely over the course of a few days...


Sooooo, you're bringing up something entirely beside the point then if the French funded it?

In other words - what's the point?


you want a relevant one?

How about in '99 when US bombing did extensive damage to the oil infrastructure, then they said "OK - you can export more than your $5B per six months" - except that all IRaq could possibly get to port was under $3B per six months due to the damage.

And when Iraq asked the UN if they could divert some $300M in oil-for-food money to fix the infrastructure so they could then produce the oil to fed the people, the US blocked it.....


So not only did the US ensure that sanctions continued, they also ensured that Iraq couldn't even sell as much as they were allowed to....

Don't blame the US alone. It was UN sanctions, and the rest of the world went along with it.

Or were Canadians secretly smuggling food to poor Iraqis? I think not.

You'll notice he said we. Meaning that other countries, including Canada, are also culpable.

I wonder how Saddam could afford to pay for that Thompson-CSF radar network with all of the sanctions in place....

Oh I see. The French loaned him billions of francs, gave him the radar network, installed it for him, and then he promised to pay them back after the sanctions were lifted.

Guess they didn't get their money back, eh? Maybe that's why the French are so upset. That, and the radar network was blown up completely over the course of a few days...


How is this different then when Reagan gave them WMD which they used on Iran? Then turned around and also gave weapons to Iran? Is it only bad when it's not America doing it? America was in full support of Saddam waging war on Iran, in fact said it was a "win for our side" People who live in glass houses really should not throw stones.. oh and after they used the chemical weapons on Iran, Iraq was removed from the terror watch list and US and Iraq diplomatic relations continued for years! Talk about hypocrisy!

You'll notice he said we. Meaning that other countries, including Canada, are also culpable.


Of course he doesn't notice things like that. Just like he doesn't notice repeated comments that the UK was equally hardline on this issue and also has veto powers.


He has a weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee bit of a persecution complex methinks....

How is this different then when Reagan gave them WMD which they used on Iran? Then turned around and also gave weapons to Iran? Is it only bad when it's not America doing it? America was in full support of Saddam waging war on Iran, in fact said it was a "win for our side" People who live in glass houses really should not throw stones.. oh and after they used the chemical weapons on Iran, Iraq was removed from the terror watch list and US and Iraq diplomatic relations continued for years! Talk about hypocrisy!

Were we giving him WMD during a sanctions period?

I've looked into the so-called US giving WMD - we never gave him munitions. We apparently gave Iraqi universities the same biological samples we give other universities around the world (pre-911). And we never gave him any chemical weapons or precursors.

So you know of a way to design a UN program so that it can't be corrupted?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

There is no way of building any program that can't be corrupted if someone is determined to corrupt it. The UN is far from the only organization with this problem. The UN does provide a number of very useful services, and one shouldn't denigrate the organization as a whole. That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Sooooo, you're bringing up something entirely beside the point then if the French funded it?

In other words - what's the point?


The point is that the French wanted to evade the sanctions and sell him billions worth of military equipment, in the hopes of getting the money back later.

They opposed the war because they realized that
a) they would never get the billions back and
b) people would see how useless their equipment is, and never buy any again

So you know of a way to design a UN program so that it can't be corrupted?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Frankly, I don't know of a way to design a GOVERNMENT program at any level in any jurisdiction that would be foolproof.


The UN is hardly unique in that aspect....


In the US though, they just call it..... pork.

Sounds so much nicer than graft, corruption, sleaze, or what it really is: abuse of public funds.


And yes, it exists here too. But we rarely talk about it as being the normal cost of getting laws passed in a matter of fact a way as you do.

Or maybe it was more Saddam taking all the money that did it.

Oh, right, the US forced him to withhold it.


It would have taken alot more than just the money saddam took to prevent such disaster.

Were we giving him WMD during a sanctions period?

No by then you had jumped ship to protect the House of Saud. Another corrupt regime.

I've looked into the so-called US giving WMD - we never gave him munitions. We apparently gave Iraqi universities the same biological samples we give other universities around the world (pre-911). And we never gave him any chemical weapons or precursors.

You just keep telling yourself that, what are you? 12? I thought you were married and had done time in the service, surely you must be old enough to remember these things? They were not exactly secrets at the time.

The point is that the French wanted to evade the sanctions and sell him billions worth of military equipment, in the hopes of getting the money back later.

They opposed the war because they realized that
a) they would never get the billions back and
b) people would see how useless their equipment is, and never buy any again

And what does this have to do with comparing the 1.8 B from the Oil for Food Scandal to the 5 B in the softwood lumber dispute?

The point is that the French wanted to evade the sanctions and sell him billions worth of military equipment, in the hopes of getting the money back later.

They opposed the war because they realized that
a) they would never get the billions back and
b) people would see how useless their equipment is, and never buy any again


Again though, how EXACTLY does that relate to the $1.8B skimmed off of the oil for food program and how it might have been better spent?


So you hate the French.

We know.

Now can we move on to something remotely RELEVANT?!

Especially given that France also has veto power and yet never used it on issues related to sanctions.....

In other words, you are stating that France was to blame and was trying to skirt sanctions that they voted into existence because, I asume, they disagreed with them on principle.... your argument makes no sense.

And what does this have to do with comparing the 1.8 B from the Oil for Food Scandal to the 5 B in the softwood lumber dispute?

I might ask what does the 5 B in the softwood lumber dispute have to do with the 1.8 B in the Oil for Food Scandal.

I'm talking about the Oil for Food Scandal, and the nations that evaded the sanctions on purpose to make money.

You and the others are talking about softwood lumber. I wonder who is off topic. The title of the thread is "Oil for Food Update" not "Canadian Lumberjacks Are Angry".

And what does this have to do with comparing the 1.8 B from the Oil for Food Scandal to the 5 B in the softwood lumber dispute?


Nothing.


It's obscuring the real subject by flinging mud hoping a tangental subject gets traction.


A tactic I've seen used far too often around here....

Frankly, I don't know of a way to design a GOVERNMENT program at any level in any jurisdiction that would be foolproof.


The UN is hardly unique in that aspect....


In the US though, they just call it..... pork.

Sounds so much nicer than graft, corruption, sleaze, or what it really is: abuse of public funds.


And yes, it exists here too. But we rarely talk about it as being the normal cost of getting laws passed in a matter of fact a way as you do.

Maybe Sierra would be more willing to discuss things reasonably if we didn't rub salt into this wounds? I doubt that Sierra supports pork in his government anymore than we like Adscam.

Hi folks,

Rather than spend hours wading through questionable internet sources for the relevant supporting information, I was wondering if people could provide some sort of support for the following statements form sources that don't have names like www.bushsucks.org or www.americarules.com...

People died as a result of skimming Oil for Food money.
Sierra BTHP

the sanctions that every country wanted to lift except the USA, which is what led to the oil for food scandal.
Stephistan

And how many of those same countries were selling Iraq military equipment that was forbidden to them? (Russia, France, Germany....)
Kecibukia

But when the renewal last came up in 2001, You had to buy Russia off with $200 million in extra oil contracts before they voted with you.
Silliopolous

Oh I see. The French loaned him billions of francs, gave him the radar network, installed it for him, and then he promised to pay them back after the sanctions were lifted.
Sierra BTHP

How about in '99 when US bombing did extensive damage to the oil infrastructure, then they said "OK - you can export more than your $5B per six months" - except that all IRaq could possibly get to port was under $3B per six months due to the damage.
And when Iraq asked the UN if they could divert some $300M in oil-for-food money to fix the infrastructure so they could then produce the oil to fed the people, the US blocked it.....
So not only did the US ensure that sanctions continued, they also ensured that Iraq couldn't even sell as much as they were allowed to....
Silliopolous

How is this different then when Reagan gave them WMD which they used on Iran? Then turned around and also gave weapons to Iran? America was in full support of Saddam waging war on Iran, in fact said it was a "win for our side".. oh and after they used the chemical weapons on Iran, Iraq was removed from the terror watch list and US and Iraq diplomatic relations continued for years!
Stephistan

I've looked into the so-called US giving WMD - we never gave him munitions. We apparently gave Iraqi universities the same biological samples we give other universities around the world (pre-911). And we never gave him any chemical weapons or precursors.
Sierra BTHP

The point is that the French wanted to evade the sanctions and sell him billions worth of military equipment, in the hopes of getting the money back later.

They opposed the war because they realized that
a) they would never get the billions back and
b) people would see how useless their equipment is, and never buy any again

a) Were is it written that the sovereign state of Iraq can default its debt to any nation, even if it changes goverment? If they owed the french billions, well, they will still have to pay it.

b) Yes, hundreds of LeClerc tanks were destroyed, and dozens of Mirage were shot down by the US :rolleyes:

I'm talking about the Oil for Food Scandal, and the nations that evaded the sanctions on purpose to make money.

You and the others are talking about softwood lumber. I wonder who is off topic. The title of the thread is "Oil for Food Update" not "Canadian Lumberjacks Are Angry".

I would suggest you look to the first post of this thread. It is what the thread was based on, it's not off-topic. It is the topic.

I might ask what does the 5 B in the softwood lumber dispute have to do with the 1.8 B in the Oil for Food Scandal.

I'm talking about the Oil for Food Scandal, and the nations that evaded the sanctions on purpose to make money.

You and the others are talking about softwood lumber. I wonder who is off topic. The title of the thread is "Oil for Food Update" not "Canadian Lumberjacks Are Angry".


Try rereading the first post in which the subject matter was more fully described. And it was you who focused this angle with your own first reponse which was about "at least no-one died due to softwood", or words to that effect.


So don't pretend that you don't know what the subject was.

Maybe Sierra would be more willing to discuss things reasonably if we didn't rub salt into this wounds? I doubt that Sierra supports pork in his government anymore than we like Adscam.


No doubt. However he is the one singling out UN programs as being somehow uniquely corrupt, which deserved a challenge.

Try rereading the first post in which the subject matter was more fully described. And it was you who focused this angle with your own first reponse which was about "at least no-one died due to softwood", or words to that effect.

So don't pretend that you don't know what the subject was.

It looks like the Oil For Food Scandal and the sanctions are perfectly legitimate parts of the topic to me.

I might ask what does the 5 B in the softwood lumber dispute have to do with the 1.8 B in the Oil for Food Scandal.

I'm talking about the Oil for Food Scandal, and the nations that evaded the sanctions on purpose to make money.

You and the others are talking about softwood lumber. I wonder who is off topic. The title of the thread is "Oil for Food Update" not "Canadian Lumberjacks Are Angry".

The title does say that. However, the opening post, which usually opens the subject for the topic does compare the two amounts. It's pretty clear that the author meant this thread to be about that comparison.

Thus, I understand the discussion regarding the UN and the Oil for Food Scandal. However, when we start discussing the French, I do want to know how that leads back to the orginal topic. After all, I might be missing something.

The title does say that. However, the opening post, which usually opens the subject for the topic does compare the two amounts. It's pretty clear that the author meant this thread to be about that comparison.

Thus, I understand the discussion regarding the UN and the Oil for Food Scandal. However, when we start discussing the French, I do want to know how that leads back to the orginal topic. After all, I might be missing something.

I'm making the point that no one is adhering to any agreements - trade agreements, UN sanctions, etc. It's all a game, and everyone is playing it to their own advantage.

I'm making the point that no one is adhering to any agreements - trade agreements, UN sanctions, etc. It's all a game, and everyone is playing it to their own advantage.

Well yea, you are right, but you got to admit, those sanctions could have been laxed a bit :/

I'm making the point that no one is adhering to any agreements - trade agreements, UN sanctions, etc. It's all a game, and everyone is playing it to their own advantage.

Ok then, give us our 5 Billion dollars you're trying to steal and cancel NAFTA. Easy enough.

Well yea, you are right, but you got to admit, those sanctions could have been laxed a bit :/

So why didn't you "lax them" at the start? Why didn't anyone veto them?

Oh I see. They wanted to game it out.

There are a lot of other trade and tariff agreements between nations that amount to billions lost.

And even more between multinational corporations screwing each other and the nations that host them.

But, by and large, it's not as sanguine as the deaths of people because of corruption.

I don't see any dead Canadian lumberjacks because of the 5 billion lost.

Hi folks,

But when the renewal last came up in 2001, You had to buy Russia off with $200 million in extra oil contracts before they voted with you.
Silliopolous


Oh dear, the "link-support" Nazis...

OK, I'll use Global Policy as my news portal. You can track down the originals for each article if you so choose as they are all annotated as to source:

Start here (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2002/0514merip.htm)

"The key element in the new arrangements is the Goods Review List provided for in paragraph 2 of UNSC Resolution 1382, passed in November 2001. Items specified on this list, defined as for military or dual use, are to be separated from humanitarian goods. Russia's agreement to accept this list, after protracted negotiations, cleared the way for implementation of the new "smarter" sanctions. The US sweetened the pot for Russia by removing holds on over $200 million of Russian contracts with Iraq in late March. By the rules of the 661 Committee which presently scrutinizes orders for humanitarian goods, all Security Council members are allowed to query and hold up such orders. About 90 percent of the $5 billion worth of contracts currently on hold are being blocked by the US and Great Britain. "


Also note the one thing mentioned here that people forget too often. All security Council members had powers of review and approval of each and every contract signed with Iraq.

EACH ONE.

If rampant corruption was under way, it must have been doing so with either their complicity or due to their negligence to properly vett and track dollars sent and oil volumes recieved.



How about in '99 when US bombing did extensive damage to the oil infrastructure, then they said "OK - you can export more than your $5B per six months" - except that all IRaq could possibly get to port was under $3B per six months due to the damage.
And when Iraq asked the UN if they could divert some $300M in oil-for-food money to fix the infrastructure so they could then produce the oil to fed the people, the US blocked it.....
So not only did the US ensure that sanctions continued, they also ensured that Iraq couldn't even sell as much as they were allowed to....
Silliopolous


Do you need sources for the damage to the oilfields in the Basra region in '99? Because that is widely known and reported.

On the 300Mill, look to this (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/irq11-2.htm)

The United States and Britain said they have shown flexibility in allowing Baghdad to use about $900 million of oil revenue to rebuild its oil industry, instead of spending it on food and medicine. Today, however, U.S. and British delegates will open a campaign in the Security Council to block a request by Annan to allow Iraq to spend an additional $300 million to repair its petroleum industry infrastructure, according to diplomats. The dispute centers on the 1996 oil-for-food deal that permits Baghdad to sell $5.2 billion of oil every six months to pay for food, medicine and other items that improve the health of Iraqis. Until recently, low world oil prices and Iraq's aging infrastructure have prevented it from exporting that much.

So why didn't you "lax them" at the start? Why didn't anyone veto them?

Oh I see. They wanted to game it out.

In case you havent noticed, there are more countries in the world than the five with veto power in the UN SC....


I don't see any dead Canadian lumberjacks because of the 5 billion lost.


But you haven't proven that any Iraqis died because of it either.



And the original premise is still valid! The US position is screaming about the corruption of the case, not the humanitarian results. The problem being illegal fund diversion in contravention of signed international instruments.

To which my note that the US has been doing the same damn thing, is still doing it, and has ripped us off for almost three times that amount is still valid.


If it's wrong, it's wrong. So stop doing it.

Or if $5B is chicken feed in our case, then why are you wasting so much damn money trying to chase down what happened with a few measly grains in that case?

Either way - pay the fuck up before you expect me to get all outraged at Volvo.

Sierra BTHP makes a good point in that every player is playing the game to its own advantage. If I were the US administration,I wouldn't care whether or not I screwed 5 billion out of the Canadian lumber industry. Hell, I'd screw them for another ten billion if I could. Who's gonna stop me? The WTO? Canada? The real idiots are the Canadian politicians who signed the NAFTA and Free Trade agreements, and the people who voted for them and supported them.

This is why the US is so supportive of making a huge scandal out of the OIL for Food thing. If it keeps the UN from becoming too powerful a player, the better for the US. If the chickenhawks really thought the UN was so useless, they would resign from the UN, instead of maintaining veto power over the UN's only legislative body.

So why didn't you "lax them" at the start? Why didn't anyone veto them?

Oh I see. They wanted to game it out.




Why? Because when they were in place, Saddam was persona non grata in the international community, and Iraq was perceived to be punished,everyone agreed on that. They were bowed, bent and broken by war, sanctions were the logical succession for a pariah state. But all things pass, except for you paranoid Americans that keep on hitting the dead horse.

For christ sake, Iraq was wiped out in a week in 91 when they were on the top of their strenght, after that and years of sanction only a nut would think they posed any threat, why not lax them? For some sort of vendetta "we didn't invaded bagdad in 91, they must pay!"?

I mean, let's assume there had been no second gulf war; Those sanctions would still be in place for what?

But you haven't proven that any Iraqis died because of it either.

There are plenty of liberals like Steph who will say that 300,000 kids were killed in Iraq by the sanctions. If we assume that 1.8 billion more dollars would have helped (at 6000 per kid, it should have), then we can surely say that lives would have been saved if the 1.8 billion had been properly spent on the Iraqis affected by the sanctions. QED.


Sorry, I only think it's wrong if people die as a result of gaming the treaties and money and contracts. And only if it's people who had nothing to do with the threaties and money and contracts, and no power to change them. So if someone is cheated on a contract, and he ends up jumping from a high rise, that's not a problem to me.

These contracts, treaties, and money - and the nations and multinationals that form the interactions - are all explained by game theory.

And I'm fine with them playing games, as long as no one gets killed.

BTW, are you eating US beef yet?

Oh dear, the "link-support" Nazis...

yes, provide links or Iwill send your allegations to the gas chambers:p



Also note the one thing mentioned here that people forget too often. All security Council members had powers of review and approval of each and every contract signed with Iraq.

EACH ONE.

If rampant corruption was under way, it must have been doing so with either their complicity or due to their negligence to properly vett and track dollars sent and oil volumes recieved.

Interesting. Thankyou very much.

Sierra BTHP makes a good point in that every player is playing the game to its own advantage. If I were the US administration,I wouldn't care whether or not I screwed 5 billion out of the Canadian lumber industry. Hell, I'd screw them for another ten billion if I could. Who's gonna stop me? The WTO? Canada? The real idiots are the Canadian politicians who signed the NAFTA and Free Trade agreements, and the people who voted for them and supported them.

Of course Canada likes NAFTA, we've had trade surpluses for over a decade now, while America is what? 700 Billion in trade deficits with China alone. Listen, the US needs Canada in many ways more than Canada needs the US. We have the world's second largest oil reserve and the most natural resources in the world bar none. We can easily sell it to a market other than the US, being that our electric power and oil and water makes the USA look like Mexico, sure it would drop our bottom line as it's cheaper to ship to the US, but hey, who's buying from the USA except Canada? Not many.. and you're not the only game in town dude.

Sierra BTHP makes a good point in that every player is playing the game to its own advantage. If I were the US administration,I wouldn't care whether or not I screwed 5 billion out of the Canadian lumber industry. Hell, I'd screw them for another ten billion if I could. Who's gonna stop me? The WTO? Canada? The real idiots are the Canadian politicians who signed the NAFTA and Free Trade agreements, and the people who voted for them and supported them.

No offence, but since - as you point out - Canada does not have the clout to force the issue, then why would they bother with ANY trade agreement with the US?

For the most part NAFTA has been a good treaty for Canada. Softwood has proved to be an exception.

but this "don't sign it because they're gonna screw you" idea is just silly.

If people are going to try and screw you they are going to try. HAving a treaty that imposes the abilities to prove the fucking over provide at least a chance at redress is better than nothing.

And the notion of blaming OUR politicians because the US is refusing to live up to the treaty is a pretty odd idea too. How exactly is that their fault?

Nor are we deluded into thinking that the US administration cares that much about our feelings. Doesn't mean we don't get to call them on their thievery though....

Nor are we deluded into thinking that the US administration cares that much about our feelings. Doesn't mean we don't get to call them on their thievery though....

I'll let you in on a secret I was told by a Canadian (an executive at Allstate Canada).

Most Canadians don't care about national Canadian issues - just as most Americans don't care about national American issues - unless those issues are brought up repeatedly in the media OR the issues directly affect them.

He said that the residents of Montana and Alberta have more in common and more common interests than the residents of either have with their national seats of government.

I can take it a step further. The residents of a state like Arizona could probably care less about softwood contracts or trade agreements, especially if they aren't involved in softwood.

And I'm sure that if any Canadian residents living in the suburbs of Toronto are not involved in softwood, they wouldn't care if it wasn't in the news (unless they happened to have a relative who was involved).

This makes it easier for bureaucrats and officials on each side to stretch the "agreements" to the breaking point.

There are plenty of liberals like Steph who will say that 300,000 kids were killed in Iraq by the sanctions. If we assume that 1.8 billion more dollars would have helped (at 6000 per kid, it should have), then we can surely say that lives would have been saved if the 1.8 billion had been properly spent on the Iraqis affected by the sanctions. QED.

and money and contracts. And only if it's people who had nothing to do with the threaties and money and contracts, and no power to change them. So if someone is cheated on a contract, and he ends up jumping from a high rise, that's not a problem to me.



Actually, the question posed to MAddie in '96 put the number at 500,000 when she said it was worth it. and the sanctions continued for another six years.... but then again, given the rival tensions in IRaq you also forget other details - like the fact that many of the children dying did so in the remote areas of the country - like the North and South under the no-fly zones where Saddam had no means of providing support. It's why the Kurds lived in autonomy but poverty - because they were safe from Saddam but still uinder sanctions.

and again, why do you only blame Saddam for people dying when your side of the game made it clear that this was the intent? It's his fault that the most powerfull country in the world got it's way?

Again, I am not excusing Saddam - but don;t pretend that hardship was not the intent either. Had he been able to full feed all his people sanctions would have been tightened along the way instead of what little relaxation did take place.


Sorry, I only think it's wrong if people die as a result of gaming the treaties
These contracts, treaties, and money - and the nations and multinationals that form the interactions - are all explained by game theory.

And I'm fine with them playing games, as long as no one gets killed.


Well, that's nice.

Call me crazy, but I feel bad for whole communities losing their livelihoods too.

Which has certainly happened during this dispute.



BTW, are you eating US beef yet?

????

Mostly the store around here carries Alberta beef - but to be honest I don't check the label all that carefully.

Of course Canada likes NAFTA, we've had trade surpluses for over a decade now, while America is what? 700 Billion in trade deficits with China alone. Listen, the US needs Canada in many ways more than Canada needs the US. We have the world's second largest oil reserve and the most natural resources in the world bar none. We can easily sell it to a market other than the US, being that our electric power and oil and water makes the USA look like Mexico, sure it would drop our bottom line as it's cheaper to ship to the US, but hey, who's buying from the USA except Canada? Not many.. and you're not the only game in town dude.

I'm not sure I follow you. It seems you are saying, with the first few sentences, that the free trade agreements benefit Canada more than The USA. Assuming your factoids are true, I"ll go along with that. Then you go on to say that the USA is more dependent on Canada than vice-versa, due to Canada's energy and natural resources. I think that would have more to do with how much of Canada's foreign trade is with the USA, and vice-versa, than the nature of the goods themselves. I believe that the USA is about 85% of Canada's foreign market (I'm guessing). I don't think Canada consumes 85% of the US's foreign exports.

I'm a game? Cool!

Mostly the store around here carries Alberta beef - but to be honest I don't check the label all that carefully.

There's an ongoing dispute between Canada and the US over "mad cow" and which nation "has it".

Tofu is looking better every day though.

He said that the residents of Montana and Alberta have more in common and more common interests than the residents of either have with their national seats of government.

Using Alberta as an example is not a good idea, because Alberta is the only conservative province in the country. Most of Canada hates Alberta and they hate most of Canada. Alberta is not a true representation of Canada by any stretch of the imagination.

Using Alberta as an example is not a good idea, because Alberta is the only conservative province in the country. Most of Canada hates Alberta and they hate most of Canada. Alberta is not a true representation of Canada by any stretch of the imagination.

He made other examples - border regions of Mexico and Arizona, Washington State and British Columbia.

He couldn't find a fit for Quebec, though.

No offence, but since - as you point out - Canada does not have the clout to force the issue, then why would they bother with ANY trade agreement with the US?

For the most part NAFTA has been a good treaty for Canada. Softwood has proved to be an exception.

but this "don't sign it because they're gonna screw you" idea is just silly.

If people are going to try and screw you they are going to try. HAving a treaty that imposes the abilities to prove the fucking over provide at least a chance at redress is better than nothing.

And the notion of blaming OUR politicians because the US is refusing to live up to the treaty is a pretty odd idea too. How exactly is that their fault?

Nor are we deluded into thinking that the US administration cares that much about our feelings. Doesn't mean we don't get to call them on their thievery though....

I think it's because it was obvious from the get go, back in 1989, that the USA was eventually going to screw Canada over. I was right. The US did screw canada. But that was just a silly idea?

I blame Mulroney and his ilk because they basically invited the USA to screw Canada, as they did not seem to have the foresight to see something like the softwood scandal.

Treaties are only worthwhile if both parties can enforce complicity from the other party.

I think it's because it was obvious from the get go, back in 1989, that the USA was eventually going to screw Canada over. I was right. The US did screw canada. But that was just a silly idea?

I blame Mulroney and his ilk because they basically invited the USA to screw Canada, as they did not seem to have the foresight to see something like the softwood scandal.

Treaties are only worthwhile if both parties can enforce complicity from the other party.

I thought that the Avro Arrow - Bomarc thing proved once and for all that Canadian politicians liked to bend over for Americans.

So no, it's not a silly idea - nor is it a new one.

It's probably a function of being a country that has a population density so low, next to the United States.

you are saying, with the first few sentences, that the free trade agreements benefit Canada more than The USA.

Yes, that would be an accurate assessment.

So, perhaps that is why they are trying to screw us with lumber, who knows. I think personally it will all work itself out once the chimp is out of office. Canada will sooner or later get the monies owned. At least that is what I believe. I have to believe that, or my total disgust for the Bush administration would then have to become one for America in general and I don't wish to think that way.

I'll let you in on a secret I was told by a Canadian (an executive at Allstate Canada).

Most Canadians don't care about national Canadian issues - just as most Americans don't care about national American issues - unless those issues are brought up repeatedly in the media OR the issues directly affect them.

He said that the residents of Montana and Alberta have more in common and more common interests than the residents of either have with their national seats of government.

I can take it a step further. The residents of a state like Arizona could probably care less about softwood contracts or trade agreements, especially if they aren't involved in softwood.

And I'm sure that if any Canadian residents living in the suburbs of Toronto are not involved in softwood, they wouldn't care if it wasn't in the news (unless they happened to have a relative who was involved).

This makes it easier for bureaucrats and officials on each side to stretch the "agreements" to the breaking point.

American citizens don't care that the price of new houses are inflated because of softwood lumber tariffs? They're okay with paying more than they need to for lumber?

I'm surprised by that.

I think it's because it was obvious from the get go, back in 1989, that the USA was eventually going to screw Canada over. I was right. The US did screw canada. But that was just a silly idea?

I blame Mulroney and his ilk because they basically invited the USA to screw Canada, as they did not seem to have the foresight to see something like the softwood scandal.

Your a bit off base.. Mulroney did screw Canada, but that was Free trade, we got a much better deal when we had a Liberal government that signed NAFTA, in fact out of the three countries in NAFTA, we're doing the best.

American citizens don't care that the price of new houses are inflated because of softwood lumber tariffs? They're okay with paying more than they need to for lumber?

I'm surprised by that.

I'm saying that they're probably not even aware of it. Go figure.

I thought that the Avro Arrow

The accepted reason why this jet, which I might add was the most advanced jet ever built was scraped and all destroyed was over paranoia that the Russians then USSR had spies in the program. I don't know if it's true or not. It seems to be the accepted theory though.

Yes, that would be an accurate assessment.

So, perhaps that is why they are trying to screw us with lumber, who knows. I think personally it will all work itself out once the chimp is out of office. Canada will sooner or later get the monies owned. At least that is what I believe. I have to believe that, or my total disgust for the Bush administration would then have to become one for America in general and I don't wish to think that way.

neat.

Could you respond to the rest of that post please?

I don't think things will change when Bush is out of office, nor do I believe that canada will get the 5 billion. Your total disgust should be extended to embrace the US oligarchy rather than the citizenry. As Pablo Neruda said, 'the North American enemies of my people are also the enemies of the North American people.'

The accepted reason why this jet, which I might add was the most advanced jet ever built was scraped and all destroyed was over paranoia that the Russians then USSR had spies in the program. I don't know if it's true or not. It seems to be the accepted theory though.

IIRC, it was because the US wanted the Canadians to buy the Sparrow missile and the Bomarc missile. The Sparrow in particular.

Raytheon had developed a miniaturized radar, but couldn't make enough of them to lower the unit costs.

They developed a two prong strategy. Get the Canadians to buy American fighters armed with the Sparrow (which worked), and sell "microwave ovens" through a spinoff company called Amana.

The first models of the "Radarange" had actual Sparrow radar emitters in them.

The Bomarc was just icing on the cake.

I thought that the Avro Arrow - Bomarc thing proved once and for all that Canadian politicians liked to bend over for Americans.

Oh yeah, you've got my agreement on that one. Although in the most gratuitous moments of American ass-kissing has been done by Tory governments, who have been in power quite a bit less than the Libs.

What was it that President Johnson said to PM Pearson?

“You've pissed on my rug!”

So they don't bend over all the time.

And when they don't, they frequently get accused of anti-Americanism.

Your a bit off base.. Mulroney did screw Canada, but that was Free trade, we got a much better deal when we had a Liberal government that signed NAFTA, in fact out of the three countries in NAFTA, we're doing the best.

Please explain to this lowly dullard how NAFTA is so much better than the FTA, and how it is that Canada is doing the best, and what that means exactly, and how that is related to NAFTA.

There's an ongoing dispute between Canada and the US over "mad cow" and which nation "has it".

Tofu is looking better every day though.


Oh, sorry - the reference was too vague for me I guess.


Besides, I haven't worried about Mad cows so much since Shiela Copps left office....

Oh, sorry - the reference was too vague for me I guess.

Besides, I haven't worried about Mad cows so much since Shiela Copps left office....

See what I mean? You could scarcely care - and I could care less as well.

But to rancher's associations here in the US - and to cattle growers in Alberta, it's probably the end of the world stuff.

neat.

Could you respond to the rest of that post please?

I don't think things will change when Bush is out of office, nor do I believe that canada will get the 5 billion. Your total disgust should be extended to embrace the US oligarchy rather than the citizenry. As Pablo Neruda said, 'the North American enemies of my people are also the enemies of the North American people.'

No, sorry, I don't mean the people, when I say "America" I'm always talking about the government. Clinton was a good friend to Canada. Reagan and Mulroney also got along quite well. Perhaps people forget, prior to 9/11 it was Canada who was always named as the USA's best friend. I mean even on 9/11 no one did more for the USA than Canada. But because we weren't sold on the whole Iraq thing, that changed. We have long memories here in Canada.

Anyway, to the rest of your post, yeah, Canada and the US are the world's largest trading partners, it doesn't mean we have to be. We agreed to be. Canada has more to offer, so I guess we were bound to get screwed by the Americans, I can't say I didn't see it coming to some degree. However if America thinks Canada is going to bend over and let by-gones be by-gones, they don't know Canada as well as they think they do. Only chance of that happening is if by some miracle Canada elects a conservative government, which I don't see happening any time soon. It just means that Canada will not play ball with the USA anymore in any other ventures.

Your a bit off base.. Mulroney did screw Canada, but that was Free trade, we got a much better deal when we had a Liberal government that signed NAFTA, in fact out of the three countries in NAFTA, we're doing the best.

And yet, it was still Mexico that had the balls to refuse to accept the clauses regarding percentage of energy export. Canada rolled over like a whipped dog. We now have no way (short of breaking the contract) to increase the percentage of energy produced in Canada that stays in Canada, even if the needs of the population changes or production capacity is reduced.

In other words, right now I produce 15 apples. I keep 8 apples and sell 7, which equals = 47% of my apple production. But then I have twins, and a bad storm ruins part of my apple crop. So now, although I want to keep 10 apples, I only have 13 to sell. Unfortunately, my contract requires me to sell 47% of my apples, so I still have to sell 6 apples, which leaves me with 7 - 3 less than I need, leaving my family with empty tummies.

In other words, right now I produce 15 apples. I keep 8 apples and sell 7, which equals = 47% of my apple production. But then I have twins, and a bad storm ruins part of my apple crop. So now, although I want to keep 10 apples, I only have 13 to sell. Unfortunately, my contract requires me to sell 47% of my apples, so I still have to sell 6 apples, which leaves me with 7 - 3 less than I need, leaving my family with empty tummies.

So Canada Hydro turns out the lights in Ottawa so the lights in New York can stay on all the time...

And yet, it was still Mexico that had the balls to refuse to accept the clauses regarding percentage of energy export. Canada rolled over like a whipped dog. We now have no way (short of breaking the contract) to increase the percentage of energy produced in Canada that stays in Canada, even if the needs of the population changes or production capacity is reduced.

In other words, right now I produce 15 apples. I keep 8 apples and sell 7, which equals = 47% of my apple production. But then I have twins, and a bad storm ruins part of my apple crop. So now, although I want to keep 10 apples, I only have 13 to sell. Unfortunately, my contract requires me to sell 47% of my apples, so I still have to sell 6 apples, which leaves me with 7 - 3 less than I need, leaving my family with empty tummies.

Yes, totally agree. However, Canada from an economic stand-point is the only one of the three countries bringing in huge trade surpluses. So, at least that we have to be thankful for. In fact we're the only member of the G-8 doing it. So, at least we have that.

So Canada Hydro turns out the lights in Ottawa so the lights in New York can stay on all the time...

No! :rolleyes:

I live in Ottawa..lol :p

Anyway, to the rest of your post, yeah, Canada and the US are the world's largest trading partners, it doesn't mean we have to be. We agreed to be. Canada has more to offer, so I guess we were bound to get screwed by the Americans, I can't say I didn't see it coming to some degree. However if America thinks Canada is going to bend over and let by-gones be by-gones, they don't know Canada as well as they think they do. Only chance of that happening is if by some miracle Canada elects a conservative government, which I don't see happening any time soon. It just means that Canada will not play ball with the USA anymore in any other ventures.

I agree. the best thing for Canada to do is to radically diversify its foreign market so that the USA is only taking about 15% of the cake. Then the next time the eagle wants to screw some beaver, he'll only get some foreplay...

See what I mean? You could scarcely care - and I could care less as well.

But to rancher's associations here in the US - and to cattle growers in Alberta, it's probably the end of the world stuff.

I can guarantee that ranchers and farmers across Canada have been hurt very badly by the mad cow scare. And I have a bone to pick with folks like R-CALF over that too. But that's another thread.

But by and large, US companies benefitted by that - until the gov't could no longer claim that the US was BSE free. Almost all the slaughterhouses and meat packing plants in Canada were owned by US corps. So they bought beef from ranchers extremely cheaply, but continued to sell to stores at the old prices. Then, when various levels of Canadian gov't started offering relief to those effected, the bulk of the cash went to the meat packing plants. Auditors proved all this. Did the corps have to pay it back? No. Were they fined for cooking the books in the first place (when Alberta asked them to open them for the investigation)? Hell, no.

Dammit, we're so f*****g stupid sometimes I just want to scream. Those guys must really pay into political campaign funds.

So Canada Hydro turns out the lights in Ottawa so the lights in New York can stay on all the time...

Hell yeah. Now I can not blame the American gov't for negotiating a contract in their best intrests, but aye carumba! do we have to make it so easy for them to screw us?

Is there some part of the contract equally weighted to Canadian interests that I'm missing? I've never actually read the whole thing through or anything.

I can guarantee that ranchers and farmers across Canada have been hurt very badly by the mad cow scare. And I have a bone to pick with folks like R-CALF over that too. But that's another thread.

But by and large, US companies benefitted by that - until the gov't could no longer claim that the US was BSE free. Almost all the slaughterhouses and meat packing plants in Canada were owned by US corps. So they bought beef from ranchers extremely cheaply, but continued to sell to stores at the old prices. Then, when various levels of Canadian gov't started offering relief to those effected, the bulk of the cash went to the meat packing plants. Auditors proved all this. Did the corps have to pay it back? No. Were they fined for cooking the books in the first place (when Alberta asked them to open them for the investigation)? Hell, no.

Dammit, we're so f*****g stupid sometimes I just want to scream. Those guys must really pay into political campaign funds.


But that's my point - you might be upset - and the people screwed might be upset.

But Silliopolous wasn't even aware of it - and he's a Canadian.

It's getting harder and harder for the average citizen to know everything about every issue - and take the time to say or do anything about it.

People laugh when they see ignorant Americans - ignorant of issues - but it's a phenomenon of our times - you can't have a significant number of people spend a large amount of time every day following up on all the issues. And the news is useless at dispersing enough detailed information (much less spinning it).

But that's my point - you might be upset - and the people screwed might be upset.

But Silliopolous wasn't even aware of it - and he's a Canadian.

It's getting harder and harder for the average citizen to know everything about every issue - and take the time to say or do anything about it.

People laugh when they see ignorant Americans - ignorant of issues - but it's a phenomenon of our times - you can't have a significant number of people spend a large amount of time every day following up on all the issues. And the news is useless at dispersing enough detailed information (much less spinning it).

Actually, this is a big part of the East/West divide in Canadian politics right now. We're not really divided into conservatives and liberals geographically -- that's more of an urban/rural thing, like in the US. But the East doesn't understand the West's issues, and the West doesn't get the East's issues. And it's only political junkies that recognize that both have valid issues. And the majority of those are just trying to spin it to the best intrests of their own region anyway.

I'm not disagreeing with you on this, Sierra, I'm just ranting.

Yes, totally agree. However, Canada from an economic stand-point is the only one of the three countries bringing in huge trade surpluses. So, at least that we have to be thankful for. In fact we're the only member of the G-8 doing it. So, at least we have that.

Is it bad of me to want more? :D

But that's my point - you might be upset - and the people screwed might be upset.

But Silliopolous wasn't even aware of it - and he's a Canadian.


Excuse the fuck out of me?

Never did I say I was unaware of the mad cow issue. Not once


All I said what that a simple statement out of context to the discussion of oil and softwood that askedd: "Had any American beef lately?" was too vague for me get what your reference was trying to mean.

And if I made a joke about the former deputy Prime Minister in response to the MAd Cow issue, well a) it was funny, and b) I didn't think we needed to get even further sidetracked onto another issue. So I made light of it and moved on...

Excuse the fuck out of me?

Never did I say I was unaware of the mad cow issue. Not once


All I said what that a simple statement out of context to the discussion of oil and softwood that askedd: "Had any American beef lately?" was too vague for me get what your reference was trying to mean.

And if I made a joke about the former deputy Prime Minister in response to the MAd Cow issue, well a) it was funny, and b) I didn't think we needed to get even further sidetracked onto another issue. So I made light of it and moved on...

You're obviously not as worked up about the issue as the typical Canadian cattle rancher.

You're obviously not as worked up about the issue as the typical Canadian cattle rancher.

No I'm not, because there WAS a valid reason why it started, and there has been ongoing movement and negotiation on the issue. It has not stalled with a definitive ruling under the terms of a trade agreement where the US is still refusing to live up to their obligations.


If it gets to that point, I'll get back to it.

In the meantime it is still working though proper chanels - even if that is going a bit too slowly for my taste.

Softwood is now in the realm of improper channels, and there IS a difference.

Hell yeah. Now I can not blame the American gov't for negotiating a contract in their best intrests, but aye carumba! do we have to make it so easy for them to screw us?

Is there some part of the contract equally weighted to Canadian interests that I'm missing? I've never actually read the whole thing through or anything.
We were supposed to have an agreement like this: You screw us over on energy and, in return, we screw you over in lumber. But then it all fell apart when the US said "F*ck off, we're not getting screwed over anything!"

And there were supposed to be a binding tribunal that could say to all parties "You agreed to be screwed over that. Deal with it." But then the US decided that binding tribunal wasn't so binding anymore.

As for Mad-Cow, I remember vividly when the first case was found in the US. The politicians said "It's a Canadian Cow!". When all the dust settled, it turned out that the Canadian cow caught the disease on Texan feed while it was grazing peacefully in Montana. But then, the R-CALF liked the idea of stopping Canadian beef at the border so they got an injunction (Which I fail to this day to understand how a judge could have granted it)

No I'm not, because there WAS a valid reason why it started, and there has been ongoing movement and negotiation on the issue. It has not stalled with a definitive ruling under the terms of a trade agreement where the US is still refusing to live up to their obligations.


If it gets to that point, I'll get back to it.

In the meantime it is still working though proper chanels - even if that is going a bit too slowly for my taste.

Softwood is now in the realm of improper channels, and there IS a difference.

True. BSE hurt and is still hurting, but the issue is getting resolved much faster than softwood lumber. That problem has been going on for a decade. And I can work up as much rant over softwood as I can over beef, even though my parents are farmers and not lumberjacks.

But maybe that's because I'm in BC, so both issues get a lot of coverage here.

The BSE thing reminds meof the kd lang fiasco.

When she came out with her lesbianism, no one in Alberta cared. When she publicly announced she was a vegetarian, she immediately became a pariah in Alberta. I like to think of it as Mad Cow Farmers disease.:D

I agree. the best thing for Canada to do is to radically diversify its foreign market so that the USA is only taking about 15% of the cake. Then the next time the eagle wants to screw some beaver, he'll only get some foreplay...
Presumably if the plans to sell oil to China go through, that'll help.

As for the BSE thing, did anyone read about this business with the American government refusing to distribute the army ration packs that had been sent over from the UK to the hurricane victims because they contained beef? Given there hasn't been an outbreak of BSE over here for over a decade it seems a little tactless.