I-Mockery Forum - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

Apr 29th, 2004 09:58 AM

KevinTheOmnivore

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/23/in...rint&position=

April 23, 2004
U.N. Chief Rebuts Critics of the Iraq 'Oil for Food' Program
By WARREN HOGE

NITED NATIONS, April 22 - Secretary General Kofi Annan struck back Thursday at critics of the United Nations and his leadership, saying they were treating unproven charges as facts and ignoring the good that the "oil for food" program brought Iraqis despite its scandal-ridden management.

The allegations of corruption have battered the United Nations just as it is being given the lead role in shaping an interim government in Iraq. Mr. Annan has responded by appointing a panel of three to investigate the charges, headed by Paul A. Volcker, a former chairman of the United States Federal Reserve.

Several Congressional committees, saying they distrust the United Nations' willingness to examine itself, are looking into the case. United Nations detractors have seized on the reports to call into question the organization's work in the Iraqi transition and Mr. Annan's fitness to remain in office.

"I think it is unfortunate that there have been so many allegations, and some of it is being handled as if they were facts, and that is why we need to have this investigation done," Mr. Annan said Thursday.

"And in all this, '' he added, "what has been lost is the fact that the oil-for-food program did provide relief to the Iraqi population. Every household was touched."

The Security Council began the program in 1996 to enable Iraq to sell oil and devote the proceeds to humanitarian purchases as a way of easing the effects of the sanctions imposed after the Persian Gulf war of 1991. According to the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of the United States Congress, Saddam Hussein's government skimmed $10.1 billion from the $67 billion program.

Mr. Annan said that he had met Wednesday with Benon V. Sevan, the former head of the program, and that Mr. Sevan had promised to cooperate with the investigation. Mr. Sevan's name was reportedly discovered on an Iraqi Trade Ministry document saying he had received an illegal oil allotment himself worth up to $3.5 million. Mr. Annan said Mr. Sevan had repeated his past denials of the charge.

The Security Council unanimously approved a resolution on Wednesday endorsing the inquiry.

Joining Mr. Volcker, 76, on the panel are Richard J. Goldstone, 65, a South African judge who served as prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, and Mark Pieth, 50, a Swiss law professor with expertise in tracking money laundering.
###

Apr 23rd, 2004 07:01 PM

Ant10708

"Vietnam is a jungle nation where America fought for nine years and lost 58,000 troops. We've been in Iraq about a year and have lost about 650(this number is old I'm sure its a hudnred or two higher now). The North Vietnamese received support from two Communist superpowers. Iraq has the support of scattered jihadists and terrorist groups."

The war in Vietnam was to fight communism. The war in Iraq is for....

well not communism.

Also the majority of the Vietnamese were soldiers since everyone was a soldier. I personally don't think this si the case in Iraq now but it could become it.

Apr 23rd, 2004 01:28 AM

Dole

"Yes, because if Iraq was still under Saddam, we sure as hell know that 15,000 Iraqi (yeah, right) civilians wouldn't have died.

Can you be anymore uninformed and useless? "

-dont try and think you fucking willock, its embarrasing to witness.

Apr 23rd, 2004 12:58 AM

KevinTheOmnivore

Quote:

Originally Posted by ant guy

I'm just saying the comparision to the war going on now to Vietnam is ridiculous. They are both wars yes.... But completely different types of wars.

We are in an incredibly foreign land, dealing with guerilla tactics like terrorist bombings, insurgent ambushes, enemy fire from within the civilian population, an unstable ally in an "interim" government, no real exit strategy, etc. etc.

Again, I'm NOT saying this is going to be Vietnam.....however......

Quote:

I'm just saying you jumped at the oppurtunity to dismiss Bradon's comparison and all I'm saying is the Iraq/Vietnam comparison is just as illogical.

....uh, no, no, and no. The UN isn't even in Iraq yet. Our damn president himself has asked for international involvement in Iraq. NOBODY should seriously be comparing the oil-for-food program to Haliburton. The role we and others want to see the UN play is primarily in the maintenance of elections in Iraq, providing aid, etc. Nobody on that list on the first page will be getting exclusive contracts for oil. And once again, important point here, what is the alternative, sending more American troops for them to shoot at?

Quote:

Just pointing out that the comparison is retarded.

The only problem of course being that you completely failed to do that.

Apr 23rd, 2004 12:20 AM

Big Papa Goat

Why is it ridiculous to compare Vietnam and Iraq Ant?

Apr 22nd, 2004 10:25 PM

Ant10708

I'm just saying the comparision to the war going on now to Vietnam is ridiculous. They are both wars yes.... But completely different types of wars.

American Revolution and World War I were both wars. Doesn't mean comparing them would be accurate at all.

I'm just saying you jumped at the oppurtunity to dismiss Bradon's comparison and all I'm saying is the Iraq/Vietnam comparison is just as illogical. You even said you don't think it will be a Vietnam so I don't know why your gettign upset. Just pointing out that the comparison is retarded.

UN and Haliburton both have corruption in them. theres one comparison to counter you saying the others are both wars. :/

The UN outlawed midget tossing. bastards.

Apr 22nd, 2004 10:16 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

I was responding to ant guy.

Apr 22nd, 2004 08:39 PM

davinxtk

Kevin, I'm not sure, but I think he meant

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon

A war lasting little over a year with this low of a body count is not a "quagmire." By your definition, World War II could be classified as a quagmire.

Apr 22nd, 2004 06:34 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

WHAT???????? WHA, JESUS, WHAT??

Brandon compared UN corruption to Haliburton corruption. Haliburton is a private company with close ties to our executive branch. They were granted large no-bid contracts by that same administration, to provide services in Iraq, the place where the administration with ties to Haliburton went to war. Follow?

This was a war. the Vietnam War was a war. Right there, the two have more in common. Are they totally comparable? I don't know, probably not. But there is nothing hypocritical about embracing the possibility of the argument, while simultaneously dismissing Brandon's (unless of course you mean "well all bets are off on comparisons now, nobody can make them, lest they be hypocrites".....or something).

Apr 22nd, 2004 05:43 PM

Ant10708

The same people who said Bradon's comparison didn't make sense better not compare Iraq with Vietnam or then your just a hypocrite.

Apr 22nd, 2004 01:20 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Also, Iraq isn't even close to becoming a quagmire. The death tolls in Vietnam per day were about the amount suffered in Iraq so far.

Actually, no. By the end of 1965, the American death toll was actually smaller than the first 12 months of this war/occupation (comparably).

After that, when LBJ heavily increased soldier involvement, yes, the numbers aren't even close. But we've only completed one year of what may turn out to be a very long "occupation." Many are already advocating sending more troops. The commanders in Iraq need more troops. Chuck Hagel wants the draft reinstated. Draft boards just had fresh staff hired across the country.

No, I don't believe the draft will return, and no, I don't believe this is necessarily going to be like Vietnam or whatever. But to completely rule out the startling potential for it to happen is the kind of naive shit I expect from you, Vince.

Apr 22nd, 2004 10:22 AM

mburbank

Vinth, are you okay? OMG, we were all so worried about you. Thank God you're all right.

Apr 22nd, 2004 10:20 AM

VinceZeb

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dole

15, 000 dead Iraqi civilians. Great for all concerned.

Yes, because if Iraq was still under Saddam, we sure as hell know that 15,000 Iraqi (yeah, right) civilians wouldn't have died.

Can you be anymore uninformed and useless?

Also, Iraq isn't even close to becoming a quagmire. The death tolls in Vietnam per day were about the amount suffered in Iraq so far.

Apr 22nd, 2004 08:51 AM

AChimp

I think the UN would do a lot better if countries like the US and the UK stopped thumbing their noses at it, then whining for help when they really need it.

Apr 22nd, 2004 03:28 AM

Dole

I didnt say it counts for nothing, but you cant discount all that death. Exactly what number does it have to reach before you see it as a problem? Where is your cut off point?

Apr 22nd, 2004 03:21 AM

Brandon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dole

"So clearly that outweighs any positive changes, right?"

-so it counts for nothing? Nice.

So the positive changes count for nothing? Also nice.

Apr 22nd, 2004 03:19 AM

Dole

"So clearly that outweighs any positive changes, right?"

-so it counts for nothing? Nice.

Apr 22nd, 2004 02:16 AM

Abcdxxxx

The UN already has a history fucking up the lives of Iraqi's, and they've done about as much as the US has to provoke the attacks against them. I don't see any reason to excuse the UN or minimize their flawed activities in the region. It's back to this juvenile partisant shit of "I hate that guy soooo much, that I don't care that these other idiots are total incompatent fuck ups". You want to talk about a quagmire? Well the UN just tosses fuel to that fire every day.

Apr 22nd, 2004 01:30 AM

Brandon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dole

15, 000 dead Iraqi civilians. Great for all concerned.

So clearly that outweighs any positive changes, right?

Apr 22nd, 2004 01:26 AM

Dole

15, 000 dead Iraqi civilians. Great for all concerned.

Apr 22nd, 2004 12:56 AM

Brandon

Quote:

However, more than being a mere U.N. smear, I think the article better shows that the alternatives to the war were far more deplorable.

How?

A fading regime clinging to power with whatever means they could muster; sanctions that were starving people, destroying Iraqi society and lining the pockets of corrupt UN officials; a possible lift on the sanctions, increasing the likelihood of WMD development.

Yeah. I think it's better this way.

Millions of Iraqis liberated from an oppressive dictatorship. Iran opening up for inspection. Libya relinquishing its WMDs. North Korea intimidated into considering negotiations. Syria becoming more reasonable. Pakistan giving up its nuclear secrets dealer. Sounds pretty good to me.

Apr 22nd, 2004 12:15 AM

KevinTheOmnivore

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon

Was it an attempt to "demonize" (I prefer "expose") the United Nations? You bet your sweet ass it was. It's no different than Max posting every Iraq-related article with the word "Halliburton" located somewhere in the body as "proof" of United States treachery.

As Max already pointed out, the two hardly connect. Furthermore, with a mixture of international pressure, the UN has already established a committee to investigate these hearings and crack down on those who are guilty. They brought in an expert on international money laundering, and one of the judges who tried Milosevich. They have been open to objective criticism, and made few efforts to block this investigation. Annan supposedly called the current/past/whatever head of oil-for-food, encouraging him to capitulate.

Our president, following 9/11, fought the establishment of this committee tooth and nail. He used flawed and erronious intelligence data, exaggerated numbers, and flat out lies to justify a war. He has yet to apologize for this. He has appointed a traitor as the first ambassador to Iraq.

Please, give me this "corrupt" UN any day.

Quote:

However, more than being a mere U.N. smear, I think the article better shows that the alternatives to the war were far more deplorable.

How?

Apr 21st, 2004 09:57 PM

davinxtk

Except WWII wasn't four years of an occupied rebellion.

(Edited because I'm not a hypocrite.
I swear.)

Apr 21st, 2004 08:06 PM

Brandon

Quote:

What's your time limmit on Iraq before it's officially a quagmire? Wht's the body count? Just ours, we don't do civillian death tolls. Does the fact that this war had nothing to do with 9/11 and was sold to us on false pretenses have nothing to do with it? Even if you think this war is totally unquagmire like and completely justified, do you think the administration planned well? Are you not troubled by a deadline two months from now that has no strategy in place? Would YOUR boss let you get away with that?

I've said numerous times that reconstruction efforts were poorly planned. No one's disputing that. I don't think this war is morally wrong. Sorry Max. It was sold on false pretenses, but it wasn't morally wrong in and of itself.

A war lasting little over a year with this low of a body count is not a "quagmire." By your definition, World War II could be classified as a quagmire.

Apr 21st, 2004 11:15 AM

davinxtk

Don't forget you're a red, too.

This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

About Us |

Store |

Advertising |

Contact

Features

Shorts

Editorials

Games

Comics

Blogs

Forum

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off