U.N. Officials Bribed by Saddam?

[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).

[davinxtk]

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

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.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I was responding to ant guy.

[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.

[Big Papa Goat]

Why is it ridiculous to compare Vietnam and Iraq Ant?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

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......

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?

Just pointing out that the comparison is retarded.

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

[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.

[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.

[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.
###