Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Investigation into Corruption; UN Oil for Food Program
Topic Started: Apr 9 2004, 12:25 PM (328 Views)
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Just suggesting a topic that no one else has posted. At my last count, there were 3 different groups investigating.

Any other news?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Cool Vulcan
Captain
Is this about the ivestigation into 9/11?

If so I knew Bush was aware of it, but he didn't know where and when it would happen. They didn't think that they'd take four planes and use them as missles. No one could've known that. They were aware of highjacking but not using them to crash them into buildings, there was no corruption. They knew even during the Clinton Adimatration as far as I know.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
^^^^
I don't understand how this involves the Oil for Food program that Wichita mentioned.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
^^

No - this has nothing to do with 9/11. Since 1998 (?), the UN allowed Iraq to sell a certain amount of oil with the intent that the proceeds were going to feed the Iraqi people. Kofi Annan, head of the UN, has announced the UN will investigate whether there was corruption (kickback, bribes, etc.) in that program.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
It's another nail in the coffin of the UN and proof that France, Germany and Russia could not be trusted to do the right thing, because they were receiving illegal funds from Saddam.

Their only interest was in getting the sanctions lifted.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Investigation continues into Iraqi Oil-for-Food programme
Quote:
 
the Office for Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) is proceeding as best it can with its probe, talking to UN and former Oil-for-Food personnel, as well as people outside the Organization.

A few bad apples are to be expected in any huge beaurocracy where billions of dollars are continually changing hands and it's early days in the investigation now and too early to draw conclusions.

US Senators Blast U.N. on Iraq Oil-For-Food Program ==> political point scoring ? running off at the mouth.



Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
But this is WORTH billions of dollars, and it enriched Saddam.

Anther reason why the UN is a dinosaur.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
UN had no control over what happened to the money or proceeds once they were "paid" to Iraq anymore than does any other organisation that deals with large amounts of money or valuable products. You can't blame the UN agency responsible for coordinating that program for the corruption or theft of Saddam's cronnies and family or for a few corrupt people who happened to work for the program.

ie foreign aid given by well meaning organisations often becomes misappropriated and is often used by people it was never intended for - ie armies , despots , war chiefs , criminals .
Does this make the humanitarian agency or organisation complisate or any less worthwhile supporting if the country where the assistance is going happens to have corrupt officials or self-serving leaders ?

Anyway - if the UN were disbanded - what would replace it ?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
somerled
Apr 10 2004, 10:38 PM
Anyway - if the UN were disbanded - what would replace it ?

First define why we even need a UN.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
^^^
The aftermath of WWI and WWII had world leaders thinking that a body where nations could meet and engage in a dialogue in hopes that it would prevent future conflicts of a similar scale. This, I expect, you already knew. Whether or not it has been of any assistance in this area I am certain is open to debate. I, for one, am glad that it does exist and provides a location for Ambassadors from around the world to gather. It may not be as effective as we would like it to be, but then again when it comes to autonomy I am glad it has its limits.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Swidden
Apr 10 2004, 11:10 PM
^^^
The aftermath of WWI and WWII had world leaders thinking that a body where nations could meet and engage in a dialogue in hopes that it would prevent future conflicts of a similar scale. This, I expect, you already knew. Whether or not it has been of any assistance in this area I am certain is open to debate. I, for one, am glad that it does exist and provides a location for Ambassadors from around the world to gather. It may not be as effective as we would like it to be, but then again when it comes to autonomy I am glad it has its limits.

Yeah...I agree that was one of the facets of the UN, but now the question is, do we need to UN to accomplish the same goals?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
Yes, I think the UN still serves this purpose. It may not seem like it often, but the mere fact that there is a physical structure that allows Ambassdors from most nations to congregate in one place and engage in dialogue on a regular basis is more help than hindrance in the long run.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
The other option is to have adhoc meetings when issues come up ==> world chaos and powerful nations pushing the rest of the world around at whim and no formal means of airing grievances apart from declaring war , like in the C19 and early C20. (Back to gun boat diplomacy where might makes right and always wins.)

I for one don't particularly like that idea though there are some here and in the Bush regime who would advocate this (for the benefit of the USA and big business in particular).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
somerled
Apr 11 2004, 11:09 AM
I for one don't particularly like that idea though there are some here and in the Bush regime who would advocate this (for the benefit of the USA and big business in particular).

Advocate what?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
anon_persona
Lieutenant Junior Grade
Am I incorrect in the impression that there was a list found of all the leaders Saddam had bribed? These included Chirac, Schroeder, and Putin, if I recall correctly, the three big ones against the war in Iraq. How ironic... The irony is that France and Russia had the largest oil contracts in Iraq, and so had an incentive not to allow the invasion, as these contracts would be interrupted and/or ended. Additionally Iraq uses primarily Russian equipment for its ground forces and French equipment for its air forces. Germany rounded out its number three arms supplier. By allowing these nation's equipment to be tested in battle they would be proven to suck against US/UK weaponry, removing a valuable portion of these nations' economies. The greatest irony is that the US seemingly has no economic interest in Iraq! The oil will be unusable for years yet, as the pipelines are not secured, and when the Iraq civilian government takes over there's no promise the US will get the new oil contracts. What, pray tell, was our reason then? I am particularly confused, given that I do not believe in altruism.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus