Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/27/international/middleeast/27food.html?ei=5065&en=3fc1b7a5d668c5a8&ex=1130990400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10 /27/international/middleeast/27food.html?ei=5065&en=3fc1b7a5d668c5a8&ex=1130990400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print</a> >> More than 4,500 companies took part in the United Nations oil-for-food program and more than half of them paid illegal surcharges and kickbacks to Saddam Hussein, according to the independent committee investigating the program. The country with the most companies involved in the program was Russia, followed by France, the committee says in a report to be released Thursday. The inquiry was led by Paul A. Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. The findings are in the committee's fifth and final report, a document of more than 500 pages that will detail how outside companies from more than 60 countries were able to evade United Nations controls and make money for themselves as well as for the Hussein government. Three investigators who described their findings in interviews declined to name the companies, though they said the companies would be identified in the document on Thursday. They refused to speak on the record about the report until it is released. The new report studies the people outside Iraq who profited illicitly and how they did it. It will identify companies and individuals who took part, both deliberately and inadvertently, and will chronicle in detail the experience of 30 to 40 of them, the investigators said.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/27/D8DG535G3.html" target="_blank">http://www.breitbart.com/news/ 2005/10/27/D8DG535G3.html</a> >>According to the findings, the Banque Nationale de Paris S.A., known as BNP, which held the U.N. oil-for-food escrow account, had a dual role and did not disclose fully to the United Nations the firsthand knowledge it acquired about the financial relationships that fostered the payment of illegal surcharges. The oil-for-food program was one of the world's largest humanitarian aid operations, running from 1996-2003. Volcker's previous report, released in September, said lax U.N. oversight allowed Saddam's regime to pocket $1.8 billion in kickbacks in the awarding of contracts during the program's operation from 1997- 2003. The smuggling of Iraqi oil outside the program in violation of U.N. sanctions poured much more money _ $11 billion _ into Saddam's coffers during the same period, according to a finding in the new report. According to the findings, the program was just under three years old when the Iraqi regime began openly demanding illicit payments from its customers. The report said that while U.N. officials and the Security Council were informed, little action was taken. <<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-unoil27oct27" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/na tionworld/world/la-fg-unoil27oct27</a>,0,6666623.story?coll=la-home-headlines >>Russian companies were by far the most heavily implicated, followed by French firms. U.S. companies made up a very small percentage, the report said, though some did business through intermediaries or foreign branches and may not be listed as U.S. firms. The report also apparently alleges that flamboyant British Parliament member George Galloway received payoffs, despite his denials before the U.S. Congress this year. But Holtzman said Volcker's emphasis would not be on who was involved as much as what the inquiry showed about the failure of the U.N.'s management and oversight of the massive humanitarian program that ran from 1996 to 2003. "The moral of the story is that the U.N. was broken, and the program mismanaged to the point where it could be exploited from the outside and the inside. In order to run major humanitarian programs in the future, the U.N. needs to be fixed — urgently," he said.<<
Originally Posted By DlandDug So nearly 13 billion dollars in humanitarian aid was diverted into the coffers of Saddam Hussein at the same time that thousands of Iraqi children lingered and died in state run orphanages, as Saddam and his spokesmen regularly denounced the United States for their sanctions. I am just cynical enough to believe that this report, like the committee's previous reports, will pass with little comment, and no outrage from the masses on the left. But let a couple of soldiers burn the bodies of two dead Taliban in the field, and the howls of indignation are broadcast far and wide...
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Oh wow, neocons here bashing the UN--boy that's really new, isn't it?<< I was not aware that Paul Volcker's independant committee report for the UN was prepared by neo-cons. Any links or information to back up this assertion? >>Corruption in large organizations? Where's the news?<< The news is in front of you. That you are willing to dismiss it this way places you in the same league as those who would say, "Corruption in the military? Where's the news?" >>How come Darkbeer, you don't post links to stories about corruption in GOP occupied Ohio?<< Perhaps because that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the well documented corruption in the UN oil for food program. >>When you get down to it, the oil firms were making payoffs to Saddam for relatively small amounts compared to the total sales of oil.<< Yeah-- what's 13 billion dollars of diverted humanitarian aid among friends? >>So even with six years of millions of $$ into Saddam's personal accounts, did he use that money to reconstitute ANY of his WMD programs or BUY yellowcake from Niger?... The best Saddam could with the money was to build him more palaces.<< And all the while thousands of innocent Iraqis suffered and died. (P.S. It wasn't "millions of $$." It was billions.) >>What a lot of folks don't know is that the Clinton Admin was forced by our "friendly" Arab countries to turn a blind eye toward some of the corruption because for countries like Jordan and Turkey, Iraqi oil was their only source for oil. Without that source of oil, those governments might have been toppled if the sanctions were strictly enforced. The fact of the matter was that the embargo did in fact work in restraining business as usual for Saddam, especially in quashing his desire to rebuild his WMD programs.<< Any sources, any at all, for this specious fantasy? >>Better make shallow comments in: "US Troops Behaving Badly" thread.<< I have already left shallow comments in said thread. I eagerly await your usual deep, deep response.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan For anyone who favors exhausting all other options before going to war, this report is very depressing, and no one involved in this scandal should be given a free pass. There needs to be a major housecleaning at the UN over this, but i doubt it will happen. Almost everyone agrees that Saddam was evil and needed to go. The oil for food program was meant to keep Iraqis from suffering while he was contained, and because of pure greed, it lead in large measure to this war, giving Saddam wiggle room to snub his nose at inspections and at the UN and the US. That doesn't give Bush & Co. a free pass, either, and those chickens are coming home to roost as we all get a clearer picture of their nonsense as well. But what a corrupt mess the UN is to allow this to happen. Anyone who feels that we should always try everything possible to avoid a war should be outraged. It's enough to make anyone feel hopeless. You have a body designed to negotiate differences between companies, and their program is instead misused to line pockets and allow more killing. Add in the People for a New American Century crowd who were not above using the events of 9/11 for their own purposes and Saddam Insane and you have the perfect storm. EVERYONE ought to be outraged at the whole damn mess but already, less than 10 posts in, we can see this thread will become another left vs. right argument. That sort of distracted squabbling is exactly why governments can get away with this stuff.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>You have a body designed to negotiate differences between companies<< Sorry, I meant countries. But I think you can understand the Freudian slip in this case.
Originally Posted By MrToadWildRider The war as it is probably could've been avoided (although some form of military action was probably necessary to remove Saddam's regime and more importantly the future regime of Uday/Kusay) but I think this shows why the whole "We should've waited longer for the U.N. argument" was not a good one. There was speculation prior to the war as to why some countries, France and Russia in particular, refused to endorse military action against the Hussein regime and I guess this puts another nail in that coffin. Could the U.N. have avoided this war? Not entirely, in my humble opinion, but things could have unfolded much differently in a more global united front against Saddam and a better reconstruction of Iraq could've come from that. But that's only if the U.N. was not broken, which apparently it is, and I'm afraid it will stay that way. The thing is people want what's best for themselves, that's why things like the U.N. can't completely work - I don't think anyone would disagree that a country would make a totally unselfish act. Even if the desires of the country aren't entirely clear (example: oil or democracy in Iraq for a safer US?) you can rest assured that there is SOMETHING that the country sees as a perceived benefit of their actions for themselves. The problem is different countries have different and sometimes/often clashing desires and n o matter how good the U.N. is you can't just ignore that. Personally, I supported the Bush administration for going in without U.N. support for this very reason - if the U.N. was able to do the job they said they could with inspections I highly doubt the U.S. would've gone in but let's face it - why would you boot inspection teams out of your country and restrict access to people who are supposded to have unrestricted access to everything UNLESS you had something to hide? I'm sorry but in an issue of WMDs when someone is acting that suspicious do you REALLY want to take that risk? I sure as heck didn't want to wait to see why he was hiding stuff from inspectors (and to this day I still think something bizarre was happening there, why was he doing that to the inspectors if he had nothing to hide?) because if he DID have something at those places he wouldn't let inspectors and he DID use it what do you say then? "Oops, sorry! We knew he was hiding stuff but we didn't want to be a burden on him....I guess now we know why he was acting that way! Our bad!" ? I am in no way a neo-con. I'm a moderate who just happens to lean a little right recently but that's because of the left... but please don't try to write me off as another right-wing nut job or something.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>that will detail how outside companies from more than 60 countries were able to evade United Nations controls and make money for themselves as well as for the Hussein government.<< The problem isn't the governments of Russia or France, or even the UN. The problem is the oil companies who screwed with the system to increase their own profits and bottom line. These oil companies knew who they were dealing with and decided to line Saddam's pockets to add a few percent to shareholder value. Any company with any involvement in this should be fined to the point of bankruptcy, or disincorporated completely.
Originally Posted By patrickegan How can you blame the oil companies when it was a U.N. program? Would it not stand to reason that it fall upon the U.N.’s to oversee their own humanitarian effort? Who was the person in charge of the funds and contracts, who profited off the back’s of the starving children? I remember hearing propaganda about how U.S. policy was killing children in Iraq! In reality it was greed and sloppy oversight by the U.N. that was killing the children. The U.N. needs reform or disbandment I can’t wait to ride thru the ritzy neighborhood on my way to work to see how many U.N. flags are flying in front of million dollar homes today. Funny I haven’t seen any U.N. flags in poorer neighborhoods.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Funny I haven’t seen any U.N. flags in poorer neighborhoods. << I sure have. Just wander around Africa for a bit and you'll see them all over. I've never seen them in fancy neighborhoods, actually.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I blame the oil companies because they are the ones who committed the fraud. I'm not going to blame the UN in it's entirety for the actions for a few of it's bureaucrats. That would be like blaming the entire US government for Tom Delay's kickbacks.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer The report is out... <a href="http://www.iic-offp.org/story27oct05.htm" target="_blank">http://www.iic-offp.org/story2 7oct05.htm</a>
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Well, this is something conservatives have been talking about for years, all while the liberals pushed a guy like John Kerry to be president.. John Kerry who LOVED the UN so much he wanted to go to THEM and get their PERMISSION before taking action to protect America. Lets see... go to the UN, who are in bed with our enemy and wait until they give us the green light to go after their " business partner. " Funny the left could't see this a looong time ago when they had their moronic protests. Did we ever see a liberal hold a sign that said " UN LIED PEOPLE DIED ". Of course not.. that sign actually would have been correct. Also, the libs fought like crazy to keep John Bolton out of the UN for some reason. Why would ANYONE fight against a guy who was committed to cleaning this disgusting organization up? Mental disorder.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I'm not going to blame the UN in it's entirety for the actions for a few of it's bureaucrats.<< It is the head of the UN who is implicated in this scandal.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <why would you boot inspection teams out of your country and restrict access to people who are supposded to have unrestricted access to everything UNLESS you had something to hide?> Since Saddam did not have any WMD, more and more the answer to your question seems to be: to convince one's neighbors (especially Iran) that one "must" have them, and thereby not look weak and naked to extremely hostile countries on your border that are larger than you.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I am just cynical enough to believe that this report, like the committee's previous reports, will pass with little comment, and no outrage from the masses on the left.> Why should this be a left/right issue at all? Corruption is corruption. <EVERYONE ought to be outraged at the whole damn mess but already, less than 10 posts in, we can see this thread will become another left vs. right argument. That sort of distracted squabbling is exactly why governments can get away with this stuff.> Exactly, 2oony.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>It is the head of the UN who is implicated in this scandal.<< I'm not going to blame the United States in it's entirety for the actions of the bureaucrat in charge of it.
Originally Posted By itsme they are all innocent, no one has been charged, where is the crime, its another attempt just to make them look bad, when will they ever learn, nice job
