Originally Posted By MrToadWildRider >>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.<< That's a good point but surely he saw what happened to him when he invaded Kuwait and the U.N.'s response - if he were truly following the U.N. and being a good doobie and Iran tried to invade Iraq don't you think it's fair to assume the U.N. would've stepped in? Especially in light of the U.N. having financial investments in Iraq? He knew that too.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Did the U.N. step in when Iraq and Iran fought a very long, bloody war for 8 years? He couldn't have counted on anything for round two, if there was one.
Originally Posted By patrickegan I live in California and I could find at least 2 if not 3 UN flags flying but the only difference here and Africa is they happen to be rich liberal neighborhoods.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/12876385.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bradenton.com/mld/b radenton/news/local/12876385.htm</a> >>France's former U.N. ambassador has been taken into custody as part of an investigation into allegations of wrongdoing in the Iraq oil-for-food program, judicial officials said Tuesday. Jean-Bernard Merimee, 68, who also was ambassador to Italy from 1995-98 and to Australia in the 1980s, is suspected of having received kickbacks in the form of oil allocations from the regime of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. He was also a special adviser to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan from 1999 to 2002.<<
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Why should this be a left/right issue at all? Corruption is corruption.<< Why indeed? It's a mystery to me...
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << France's former U.N. ambassador has been taken into custody >> Wow, what a shocker. All of John Kerry's buddies are going to the hole.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Yes, John Kerry's buddies are the ones who are worried about investigations and indictments right now. LOL
Originally Posted By DlandDug The crew engulfed in scandal at the UN are responsible for the slow death by starvation of thousands of innocent Iraqis. I won't draw comparisons to any other scandals that are currently in play, but I hate to see this horror reduced to a political talking point.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan This scandal played a huge part in the lead up to the war in Iraq -- it made economic sanctions far less effective on pressuring Saddam. We'll never know if those sanctions might have led to Saddam's fall without the loss of so many of our soldiers. It sure isn't getting the kind of coverage I would have hoped to see. What I don't get is that the outrage should be bipartisan, international, and receiving the kind of coverage usually reserved for J-Lo's latest relationship. This is a huge story, but with 'round the clock reporting on will-he/won't-he indictments, it's barely a blip.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>This scandal played a huge part in the lead up to the war in Iraq...<< You're right, 2ny, and I hadn't thought of this. It does make sense in light of this that the story is being soft pedaled. For those who continue to use the war as the lynchpin of their criticism of Bush, suggesting that other factors led to the war is counterproductive. So this story languishes, while three 24/7 news networks breathlessly inform us hourly that there is "no news today!"
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Keep in mind also, that if France and some of the other countires he was doing " business " with, would have backed us up in the run up to war, Saddam would have backed down and the war would have never happened.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The crew engulfed in scandal at the UN are responsible for the slow death by starvation of thousands of innocent Iraqis. > Well, not quite. Most of the starvation deaths took place during the sanctions period BEFORE "oil for food," which was enacted as a response to the starvation. After "oil for food" the starvation was largely allieviated; although as we know, not ALL the money went to food - some of it was funneled to Saddam and others as kickbacks.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I don't understand why there needed to be an oil for food program to begin with. That just opens the door to all sorts of possibilities for corruption. If humanitarian aid was needed, countries should do so without getting something in return. The reason for those economic sanctions was to shut off the country's economic engine and to put mucho pressure on Saddam to submit to inspections. I still believe TRUE economic sanctions might have forced his hand and possibly avoided this war entirely. Instead, emboldened by how he was getting over on everyone with his kickback scheme, he thumbed his nose at the world. There's plenty the Bush administration did wrong, and they ought to be held accountable for that. But I am concerned that the UN's monumental screw up here -- which contributed to the death of thousands in a war that might have been avoided -- is getting largely overlooked.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's a tough question. How do you make true economic sanctions hurt Saddam but not the average Iraqi, when Saddam effectively controls everything? I'm not saying I have the answer to that, either.
Originally Posted By DlandDug While I applaud the humanitarian efforts of the oil for food program, it is undeniable that half the equation was oil. If Saddam had been a tyrant with nothing tangible to offer, would a massive program like this have been in place? I think not.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Definitely not. Name your-country-here with a tyrant in power and nothing much to offer.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>If Saddam had been a tyrant with nothing tangible to offer, would a massive program like this have been in place?<< We probably wouldn't have bothered with the border dispute to begin with if there wasn't anything of commercial value involved to begin with.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20051030-100352-8023r.htm" target="_blank">http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed /20051030-100352-8023r.htm</a> >>Critics of President Bush make the specious assertion that he went to war two years ago not because Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer and an international menace but because the administration was beholden to firms like Halliburton. These same critics -- who are so eager to libel Mr. Bush -- are understandably reluctant to talk about a genuine multibillion-dollar scandal regarding the war: the oil-for-food scandal, presided over by the United Nations. Two reports issued during the past week provide further documentation about how Saddam Hussein used the oil-for-food program, which was supposed to help the Iraqi people, in order to enrich politicians and businessmen who opposed taking action against his regime. One of the reports also alleges that Hans von Sponeck (who served as U.N. humanitarian coordinator for Iraq from 1998 to 2000, when he resigned to protest the damage he said was being caused by sanctions) made money from the program. Mr. von Sponeck solicited financial contributions for his anti-sanctions work from firms that were attempting to win business deals with Saddam's government, according to the Independent Inquiry Committee headed by former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker, which issued its final report on Thursday. The bottom line in Mr. Volcker's report is that Saddam Hussein succeeded in using the oil-for-food program to make it lucrative for some to do the bidding of the Ba'athists. The report demonstrates that by 2003 the integrity of the Security Council had been so compromised that it would never have given serious consideration to using force against Iraq. That's a painful reality that the most strident critics of Mr. Bush still don't want to confront. <<
