Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

Shaun Barrett · 2004-04-30 01:02:31

I guess this topic has been aired somewhere else here at New Mars(?) but I haven't found it yet. It's been hard to find any reference to it anywhere in the press or on T.V., too, but maybe I haven't been paying enough attention.
The Australian newspaper ran an editorial which sums up the story and I've been waiting for it to really take hold in all the mainstream media - so far it's been kept fairly quiet.
Here's the editorial from two days ago (somebody please tell me if quoting it verbatim is against the regulations and I'll delete it. I'm assuming that because it's 2 days old, it's no longer a copyright issue.)

In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, and in the year since, a fashionable argument about toppling Saddam Hussein's regime went something like this: no effort to end the suffering of the Iraqi people would be "legitimised" unless it was led by the UN because, while the UN's motives were humanitarian, those of the US and its allies were blackened by material self-interest. There is now growing evidence that the opposite was the case. Iraqi oil production is at pre-war levels, and genertaing $20 billion a year in profits that flow direct to the Iraqi people - not the coffers of the coalition of the willing. But in a scandal that has now snaked its way right to the office of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, it appears that it was at the UN, and among Security Council members who opposed the invasion, that Iraq was "all about oil".
The oil-for-food program, which was set up under UN auspices in 1996 to ameliorate the effect of economic sanctions on children, the sick and the poor, is now alleged to have been scammed in three ways. By pretending that Iraqi oil had generated less income for the program than was the case, UN officials skimmed billions of dollars for Saddam and themselves. Meanwhile, contractors received kickbacks for overquoting the price of food, medicine and other humanitarian aid: the difference between the quoted price, and what they were really paid, was split with Saddam's regime and corrupt officials. And finally, hundreds of individuals - including, it is claimed, senior Russian and French diplomats, as well as some prominent anti-war voices in the West - were given preferential oil contracts that they were able to on-sell to oil traders at considerable profit. It is a scandal that dwarfs the general claims of favouritism made about the awarding of Iraqi reconstruction contracts to US Vice-President Dick Cheney's old firm, Halliburton.
There are currently three investigations into oil-for-food, and it is not impossible one of them will claim the scalp of Mr Annan himself - the corruption and incompetence were on his watch, and encompassed some of his senior officials. But whether the motives of those who drove the UN position on Iraq were lilywhite or sullied, that position was wrong. In November, 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441, which ordered Saddam to meet his obligation to the international community by disarming and allowing full weapons inspections. He was allowed to flout the resolution, just as he had done with rulings stretching back a decade. It now seems possible the delay increased the "take" of those profiting illegally from oil-for-food. But it certainly cost lives in Iraq, and permanently dented the relevance of the UN.

So, it's beginning to look like the anti-war brigade's attitude was actually "all about oil", not that of the coalition of the willing!
I've always thought that that was bound to prove the much more likely case, since now the Iraqi oil production benefits go straight to the Iraqi people. Australia certainly never got any illicit oil out of it, I'm sure of that!
Up until now, the "all about oil" theory just never made any sense to me. Now, it does ... but not in the way most of the press has been bleating about it for the past 12 months.
:;):
I, for one, am very much looking forward to some of these hypocritical "anti-war" crooks being brought to justice. But it'll be interesting to see whether some of the anti-coalition-pro-UN media will give it much coverage.
???

Palomar · 2004-04-30 11:21:09

*I thought I'd previously started a thread about Bill O'Reilly, but I can't find it via Search. Oh well...

I'm beginning to dislike Mr. O'Reilly. I was formerly mostly neutral about him, etc. He's seriously considering calling a boycott on Canada unless two alleged U.S. military "deserters" are returned (who allegedly have fled to Canada to avoid returning to service/Iraq). Strange thing is, O'Reilly doesn't identify/name these two alleged servicemen. Why not identify them by name? Who are they, if this is "for real"? And boycott Canada over 2 U.S. soldiers allegedly deserting to Canada? I think such a call is preposterous, even if the story is true.

Last evening (we watch O'Reilly generally 2 to 3 times per week) O'Reilly commented on how horrible Canada's paper "The Globe and Mail" are treating him, his viewers, and the U.S. in general. I found http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/Art … Reilly]the G & M article and its author to whom O'Reilly refers...I honestly did not think the article was -that bad-, and feel O'Reilly is overreacting.

O'Reilly also, a few evenings ago, aired a tape of a Senator refusing to say the words "under God" during the Pledge of Allegiance prior to the beginning of a session. O'Reilly called the Senator "a pinhead" for going mute when the words "under God" were spoken, then continuing to recitate the PA normally. O'Reilly's entitled to his opinion, of course, but I think -he's- a pinhead. IIRC, there is a provision made in the Bill of Rights wherein it's a person's right to -not- make a public profession of faith or belief, and that no person shall be required to do so.

Anyway, I won't boycott Canada just like I haven't boycotted France (I bought some French perfume a few months ago -- expensive, lovely stuff from Paris!). O'Reilly is getting carried away, IMO.

Bush and O'Reilly, hmmmmpfh. :down: Check out the opinion poll at the Globe & Mail...most Canadians who voted don't consider us their best ally. Big surprise.

--Cindy

Alt2War · 2004-04-30 12:36:32

I guess this topic has been aired somewhere else here at New Mars(?) but I haven't found it yet. It's been hard to find any reference to it anywhere in the press or on T.V., too, but maybe I haven't been paying enough attention.
The Australian newspaper ran an editorial which sums up the story and I've been waiting for it to really take hold in all the mainstream media - so far it's been kept fairly quiet.
Here's the editorial from two days ago (somebody please tell me if quoting it verbatim is against the regulations and I'll delete it. I'm assuming that because it's 2 days old, it's no longer a copyright issue.)
In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, and in the year since, a fashionable argument about toppling Saddam Hussein's regime went something like this: no effort to end the suffering of the Iraqi people would be "legitimised" unless it was led by the UN because, while the UN's motives were humanitarian, those of the US and its allies were blackened by material self-interest. There is now growing evidence that the opposite was the case. Iraqi oil production is at pre-war levels, and genertaing $20 billion a year in profits that flow direct to the Iraqi people - not the coffers of the coalition of the willing. But in a scandal that has now snaked its way right to the office of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, it appears that it was at the UN, and among Security Council members who opposed the invasion, that Iraq was "all about oil".
The oil-for-food program, which was set up under UN auspices in 1996 to ameliorate the effect of economic sanctions on children, the sick and the poor, is now alleged to have been scammed in three ways. By pretending that Iraqi oil had generated less income for the program than was the case, UN officials skimmed billions of dollars for Saddam and themselves. Meanwhile, contractors received kickbacks for overquoting the price of food, medicine and other humanitarian aid: the difference between the quoted price, and what they were really paid, was split with Saddam's regime and corrupt officials. And finally, hundreds of individuals - including, it is claimed, senior Russian and French diplomats, as well as some prominent anti-war voices in the West - were given preferential oil contracts that they were able to on-sell to oil traders at considerable profit. It is a scandal that dwarfs the general claims of favouritism made about the awarding of Iraqi reconstruction contracts to US Vice-President Dick Cheney's old firm, Halliburton.
There are currently three investigations into oil-for-food, and it is not impossible one of them will claim the scalp of Mr Annan himself - the corruption and incompetence were on his watch, and encompassed some of his senior officials. But whether the motives of those who drove the UN position on Iraq were lilywhite or sullied, that position was wrong. In November, 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441, which ordered Saddam to meet his obligation to the international community by disarming and allowing full weapons inspections. He was allowed to flout the resolution, just as he had done with rulings stretching back a decade. It now seems possible the delay increased the "take" of those profiting illegally from oil-for-food. But it certainly cost lives in Iraq, and permanently dented the relevance of the UN.
So, it's beginning to look like the anti-war brigade's attitude was actually "all about oil", not that of the coalition of the willing!
I've always thought that that was bound to prove the much more likely case, since now the Iraqi oil production benefits go straight to the Iraqi people. Australia certainly never got any illicit oil out of it, I'm sure of that!
Up until now, the "all about oil" theory just never made any sense to me. Now, it does ... but not in the way most of the press has been bleating about it for the past 12 months.
:;):
I, for one, am very much looking forward to some of these hypocritical "anti-war" crooks being brought to justice. But it'll be interesting to see whether some of the anti-coalition-pro-UN media will give it much coverage.
???

I would like to know in what fantasy world you find a mainstream pro-un-anti-coilition news outlet.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-04-30 19:47:04

Hi Alt!
I believe I'm detecting a bit of a diversionary red-herring in tackling the definition of an 'anti-coalition-pro-UN' news medium, rather than the main point of these revelations about possible major corruption in the anti-war camp.
But O.K., I'll go along with it briefly. I don't know which of the American media are more likely to give you a balanced evaluation of the Iraq situation but, here in Australia, it's quite difficult to find any which aren't, or weren't in the past, distinctly anti-war (not to mention distinctly anti-American).
Our ABC and SBS television services have been discussed on the letters pages of newspapers with regard to their obvious stance against the liberation of Iraq. Just the other morning, I witnessed the veteran presenter of our "Today" program visibly squirming with stifled aggression towards our Prime Minister over Australia's involvement in Iraq. Many of our group chat shows, on almost any channel, feature young luminaries in the world of T.V. journalism jeering at your President Bush, Britain's Tony Blair, and our John Howard.
As I've mentioned, it's really very difficult to find any reference to the growing scandal of this oil-based, U.N.-anti-war-group corruption in any media outlets here in Australia. It's not surprising, in view of the plainly anti-war pro-U.N. position of the majority of Australian journalists during the past year or more, that this shocking story is being soft-pedalled as much as possible. If found to be even half true, it will pull the rug out from under the carefully fabricated anti-coalition worldview we've been plied with for months. If there had been the slightest whiff of President Bush being involved in any such scheme, the left-wing ferrets of the Australian Journalists Association would have been into it like rats up a drainpipe! :;):

But enough of this little detour away from the important point. Has anyone heard any further news about widespread and high-reaching corruption in the U.N.-administered oil-for-food program?
You may need to look pretty hard for details because I don't think information will be readily forthcoming.

As an aside, and despite the doom-and-gloom "Iraq is a flaming cauldron" views we see all day on T.V., I add this, written by British liberal commentator, William Shawcross, in "The Spectator":-

The numbers are obviously inexact. But the new Iraq Human Rights Centre in Kadhimiya has calculated that more than 70,000 people would have died in the past year had Saddam [Hussein] still been in charge. Even if that is too high, UNICEF argued that sanctions were killing 5000 children a month. Liberation ended sanctions at once, so if UNICEF is right, that would be 60,000 lives saved in the past 12 months.
There is violence and there is progress in Iraq. Most visitors understand that, and most Iraqis are using their freedom well. Municipal elections have been held in 17 cities so far; according to Iranian-born author Amir Taheri, they have all been won by democratic and secularist parties. There are now more children in school and university than at any time in the past 20 years. There is not yet enough clean water and electricity, but there is more in more places than under Saddam.
There are 200 newspapers in Iraq, instead of the few that mouthed the ghastly Saddamite lies a year ago. Iraq's Mafia-style command economy is history and foreign capital has been rushing into the country. Many marsh Arabs are moving back to their traditional rivers, which are being reflooded after Saddam drained them in a brutal act of ethnic cleansing.

I know there are many things wrong with the situation in Iraq and the terrorism, inflicted by a few thousand well-armed religious fanatics, has caused more problems than anticipated. But I like to try to balance the monotonous diet of pessimism orchestrated by the media with some of the (deliberately?) overlooked good news.
Be thoughtful about what you are fed by the media. Whenever I witness a mass campaign by the media to whip people into a frenzy of condemnation about something, I fetch out my trusty bull***t detector! It's telling me we're all standing, up to our ankles, in left-wing bulls***t!!
:laugh:

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-01 01:07:33

Be thoughtful about what you are fed by the media. Whenever I witness a mass campaign by the media to whip people into a frenzy of condemnation about something, I fetch out my trusty bull***t detector! It's telling me we're all standing, up to our ankles, in left-wing bulls***t!!

I hear you! And I too have been following the UN/Iraq corruption story as much as possible. It is no surpise to me.

There are two things that people must bear in mind about the UN.
1) it is composed of a number of dictatorships and terrorist states. It's like forming a neighborhood watch and giving every burglar, murderer and rapist in the neighborhood a say in how it's run.

2) Related to the previous, the UN is horribly corrupt. Their motives are not as pure as certain elements would like to believe.

Alt2War · 2004-05-01 06:07:36

Hi Alt!
I believe I'm detecting a bit of a diversionary red-herring in tackling the definition of an 'anti-coalition-pro-UN' news medium, rather than the main point of these revelations about possible major corruption in the anti-war camp.

Look, it's easy to be blinded to ones own faults. It's also easy to overlook ones own idealogical platfroms flaws.

Just because you quote (not even NEWS) but an EDITORIAL with a highly biased and skewed version of the truth does not mean the debates over, case closed.

It's full tilted political vitrol. Perhaps you in Austrailia are just now getting down there, but I've been hearing the same shit over and over.

please in the future If you would like to discuss the topic based on a news item, at least quote a legitimate news article that at least pretends to look at both sides from a media outlet that does not have a radical tilt. Otherwise theres nothiing really to debate.

Alt2War · 2004-05-01 06:28:26

Hi Alt!
I believe I'm detecting a bit of a diversionary red-herring in tackling the definition of an 'anti-coalition-pro-UN' news medium, rather than the main point of these revelations about possible major corruption in the anti-war camp.
But O.K., I'll go along with it briefly. I don't know which of the American media are more likely to give you a balanced evaluation of the Iraq situation but, here in Australia, it's quite difficult to find any which aren't, or weren't in the past, distinctly anti-war (not to mention distinctly anti-American).
Our ABC and SBS television services have been discussed on the letters pages of newspapers with regard to their obvious stance against the liberation of Iraq. Just the other morning, I witnessed the veteran presenter of our "Today" program visibly squirming with stifled aggression towards our Prime Minister over Australia's involvement in Iraq. Many of our group chat shows, on almost any channel, feature young luminaries in the world of T.V. journalism jeering at your President Bush, Britain's Tony Blair, and our John Howard.
As I've mentioned, it's really very difficult to find any reference to the growing scandal of this oil-based, U.N.-anti-war-group corruption in any media outlets here in Australia. It's not surprising, in view of the plainly anti-war pro-U.N. position of the majority of Australian journalists during the past year or more, that this shocking story is being soft-pedalled as much as possible. If found to be even half true, it will pull the rug out from under the carefully fabricated anti-coalition worldview we've been plied with for months. If there had been the slightest whiff of President Bush being involved in any such scheme, the left-wing ferrets of the Australian Journalists Association would have been into it like rats up a drainpipe! :;):
But enough of this little detour away from the important point. Has anyone heard any further news about widespread and high-reaching corruption in the U.N.-administered oil-for-food program?
You may need to look pretty hard for details because I don't think information will be readily forthcoming.
As an aside, and despite the doom-and-gloom "Iraq is a flaming cauldron" views we see all day on T.V., I add this, written by British liberal commentator, William Shawcross, in "The Spectator":-
The numbers are obviously inexact. But the new Iraq Human Rights Centre in Kadhimiya has calculated that more than 70,000 people would have died in the past year had Saddam [Hussein] still been in charge. Even if that is too high, UNICEF argued that sanctions were killing 5000 children a month. Liberation ended sanctions at once, so if UNICEF is right, that would be 60,000 lives saved in the past 12 months.
There is violence and there is progress in Iraq. Most visitors understand that, and most Iraqis are using their freedom well. Municipal elections have been held in 17 cities so far; according to Iranian-born author Amir Taheri, they have all been won by democratic and secularist parties. There are now more children in school and university than at any time in the past 20 years. There is not yet enough clean water and electricity, but there is more in more places than under Saddam.
There are 200 newspapers in Iraq, instead of the few that mouthed the ghastly Saddamite lies a year ago. Iraq's Mafia-style command economy is history and foreign capital has been rushing into the country. Many marsh Arabs are moving back to their traditional rivers, which are being reflooded after Saddam drained them in a brutal act of ethnic cleansing.
I know there are many things wrong with the situation in Iraq and the terrorism, inflicted by a few thousand well-armed religious fanatics, has caused more problems than anticipated. But I like to try to balance the monotonous diet of pessimism orchestrated by the media with some of the (deliberately?) overlooked good news.
Be thoughtful about what you are fed by the media. Whenever I witness a mass campaign by the media to whip people into a frenzy of condemnation about something, I fetch out my trusty bull***t detector! It's telling me we're all standing, up to our ankles, in left-wing bulls***t!!
:laugh:

But O.K., I'll go along with it briefly. I don't know which of the American media are more likely to give you a balanced evaluation of the Iraq situation but, here in Australia, it's quite difficult to find any which aren't, or weren't in the past, distinctly anti-war (not to mention distinctly anti-American).

Rest assured it's the opposite here. Only in the last few months have we seen anything even remotely critical. News articles are coming out just now that origionally broke out last october.

With a presidential election coming up the press seems to be feeling a bit more friskier.

Our ABC and SBS television services have been discussed on the letters pages of newspapers with regard to their obvious stance against the liberation of Iraq. Just the other morning, I witnessed the veteran presenter of our "Today" program visibly squirming with stifled aggression towards our Prime Minister over Australia's involvement in Iraq. Many of our group chat shows, on almost any channel, feature young luminaries in the world of T.V. journalism jeering at your President Bush, Britain's Tony Blair, and our John Howard.

just last night, one of the most top viewed news shows in America was censored in half a dozen markets because it very respectfully read aloud and showed the faces of the war dead.

Valarie Plame, a CIA undercover operative was exposed and her life potentially put in danger because her husband spoke critically of the president. it took 5 month of constant pressure via the internet before any major news outlet picked this up.

Approx. 30 media markets censored a country music singer because she expressed her dislike for the president.

So dont start crying to me about lack of balanced and responsable journelism buddy

If there had been the slightest whiff of President Bush being involved in any such scheme, the left-wing ferrets of the Australian Journalists Association would have been into it like rats up a drainpipe! :;):

look into the Cellphones, privitization of water schools hospitals and electricity, the overcharging Haliberton is getting from the US, The lack of bidding for those contracts, read richard perl's and paul wolfowitz's books on iraq and middle east stratigy, it goes on and on.

I'm starting to think you live in Bizzarro World.

Be thoughtful about what you are fed by the media. Whenever I witness a mass campaign by the media to whip people into a frenzy of condemnation about something, I fetch out my trusty bull***t detector! It's telling me we're all standing, up to our ankles, in left-wing bulls***t!!

yes... Bizzarro world.

Josh Cryer · 2004-05-01 06:39:06

No Alt, other way around.

j/k

Yaknow, I've lost 10 years by stopping seriously concerning myself with politics in the last few months. Life is good.

Alt2War · 2004-05-01 06:50:51

Be thoughtful about what you are fed by the media. Whenever I witness a mass campaign by the media to whip people into a frenzy of condemnation about something, I fetch out my trusty bull***t detector! It's telling me we're all standing, up to our ankles, in left-wing bulls***t!!
I hear you! And I too have been following the UN/Iraq corruption story as much as possible. It is no surpise to me.
There are two things that people must bear in mind about the UN.
1) it is composed of a number of dictatorships and terrorist states. It's like forming a neighborhood watch and giving every burglar, murderer and rapist in the neighborhood a say in how it's run.
2) Related to the previous, the UN is horribly corrupt. Their motives are not as pure as certain elements would like to believe.

Diplomacy is better than violence.

Having a forum for diplomacy is better than not having one.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-05-01 08:17:22

Just to return the favour you did me, Alt, the last time I got a little forthright about politics, I'll give you the same advice you gave me:-
"You need to relax, man."

You make it sound like I'm very naive to quote an editorial - as though I'm breaking the simplest rules of good debate and showing my ignorance. (I wasn't even trying to start a debate - just state an opinion.)
I think you may not realise what it is I'm trying to tell you. That editorial is about all I've got on the story so far! It's the lack of news items about this alleged corruption that forms one of the main planks of my complaint. Considering that verification of the allegations would, at a stroke, eliminate any pretence that the U.N. occupied some sort of moral high ground in the Iraq affair, I thought the news item should have been given at least as much airtime or as many column inches as the anti-war propaganda has received, in such generous measure, here in Australia.
Incidentally, I've been reading The Australian newspaper for many years and I've almost always found the editorials to be frank and sensible in their general tone. I admit I was a little nervous quoting this one, since I'd seen no other reference to the story, but I had enough faith in the objectivity of the paper to go ahead anyway. I'm relieved to hear that CC has found some reference to it in the American media because there's precious little about it here!

By the way, CC, since you seem to live on another flat face of the same cubic bizarro world I occupy (according to Alt ), perhaps you would let us know if you hear any further news about the guys at the U.N. who opposed the war on a matter of high moral principle? As and when I hear anything I'll try to do likewise.
It could be a very interesting tale!

Alt2War · 2004-05-01 09:25:48

Just to return the favour you did me, Alt, the last time I got a little forthright about politics, I'll give you the same advice you gave me:-
"You need to relax, man."
You make it sound like I'm very naive to quote an editorial - as though I'm breaking the simplest rules of good debate and showing my ignorance. (I wasn't even trying to start a debate - just state an opinion.)
I think you may not realise what it is I'm trying to tell you. That editorial is about all I've got on the story so far! It's the lack of news items about this alleged corruption that forms one of the main planks of my complaint. Considering that verification of the allegations would, at a stroke, eliminate any pretence that the U.N. occupied some sort of moral high ground in the Iraq affair, I thought the news item should have been given at least as much airtime or as many column inches as the anti-war propaganda has received, in such generous measure, here in Australia.
Incidentally, I've been reading The Australian newspaper for many years and I've almost always found the editorials to be frank and sensible in their general tone. I admit I was a little nervous quoting this one, since I'd seen no other reference to the story, but I had enough faith in the objectivity of the paper to go ahead anyway. I'm relieved to hear that CC has found some reference to it in the American media because there's precious little about it here!
By the way, CC, since you seem to live on another flat face of the same cubic bizarro world I occupy (according to Alt ), perhaps you would let us know if you hear any further news about the guys at the U.N. who opposed the war on a matter of high moral principle? As and when I hear anything I'll try to do likewise.
It could be a very interesting tale!

Corruption in the UN money for food project is not big news, we've known that for years.

In fact, I believe we've had 2 UN officials quit in protest.

The news is that there are alligations of bribery.

The reason, I am inferring, that it has not shot over the top here in america, is that:

1: It is a financial matter, and the letter of the law may be very vague. We may be looking at somthing that was inscrupulious but not illegal.

2: The actual documents have not been released, but are held by Akmhed Chalibi. Chalibi has not been a source of right on information in the past.

I am quite sure that as soon as there is a smoking gun proving bribes for france, the All US News Media will simultaniously gizim their pants.

Here's 2 articles if your collecting them, that seemed to be a bit more even handed with the issue.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/worl … ...on.html

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200 … 4830-8632r

I apologize if I was rude, I do get upset seeing politically loaded opinion pieces passed off as news. I suppose I did not see your context.

I'm sorry your having a tough time with your media, start a blog

I do understand your plight, as we have the reverse here, or had until just very reciently. The conservative movement in this country has a grip on american media.

Alt2War · 2004-05-01 09:30:50

And, in fact, I'll go right along and say that the origional sources for this particular news bit, the bribery for UN votes and such, will probably prove to be gross exaggerations or out right lies.

Chalibi and the INC have proven many times to be untrustworthy.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-01 10:08:46

I do understand your plight, as we have the reverse here, or had until just very reciently. The conservative movement in this country has a grip on american media.

:laugh:

1: It is a financial matter, and the letter of the law may be very vague. We may be looking at somthing that was inscrupulious but not illegal.

Whatever the legalities, UN officials accepting bribes from Saddam Hussein destroys any credibility they may have had left.

Diplomacy is better than violence.
Having a forum for diplomacy is better than not having one.

We have a murdering thug that needs to be dealt with, what do you murdering thugs think we should do about it? Nothing? Well, okay, this is the forum for diplomacy... How 'bout you European socialists, what do you think we should do? More time? Alright... Oil futures, you say? Hmm....

By the way, CC, since you seem to live on another flat face of the same cubic bizarro world I occupy (according to Alt ), perhaps you would let us know if you hear any further news about the guys at the U.N. who opposed the war on a matter of high moral principle? As and when I hear anything I'll try to do likewise.
It could be a very interesting tale!

I'll keep an eye out for new info. So far it looks like a straightforward bribery deal, but we'll see.

Besides, US troops are in Afghanistan, A Republican president has created a massive entitlement while Democrats complained about the cost and talked about bringing back the draft, China wants to go to the moon and Arnold Schwarzenegger is Governor of California... This [is] Bizzaro world.

Palomar · 2004-05-01 13:10:04

*There is another issue bothering me, about Iraq and etc.

I saw on the news last night that one of Saddam's old generals is back in Fallujah -- in charge apparently, and wearing his old uniform. Of course, we're pulling out of Fallujah.

How is -this- progress? A visible sign of Saddam's regime -- that general's uniform.

How can we possibly be ready to pull out of Iraq next month?

Yes, I know Fallujah is just one portion of a large country. But there will be a civil war regardless of anything, I think. I want our troops out of there ASAP, but I realize that prematurely leaving will cause more problems.

Anyway, does anyone here believe Bush wants our troops out of Iraq by the end of June because he really feels Iraq will be able to stand on its own two feet by then, as a democratic nation besides...or is he looking to improve his re-election odds?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … 19]Article: General in Regime uniform

--Cindy

::EDIT:: New Yorker magazine claims it's obtained *53-page* internal U.S. military document outlining abuses of Iraqi prisoners. This report adds to the list of abuses, including rape, pouring chemicals on detainees, etc.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … _dc_3]read me

Suppose we'll get another 9/11 for this?

I do agree with Shaun and Cobra Commander as to the nature of punishment the abusive soldiers should receive.

Mark Friedenbach · 2004-05-01 15:07:19

*There is another issue bothering me, about Iraq and etc.
I saw on the news last night that one of Saddam's old generals is back in Fallujah -- in charge apparently, and wearing his old uniform. Of course, we're pulling out of Fallujah.
How is -this- progress? A visible sign of Saddam's regime -- that general's uniform.
How can we possibly be ready to pull out of Iraq next month?
Yes, I know Fallujah is just one portion of a large country. But there will be a civil war regardless of anything, I think. I want our troops out of there ASAP, but I realize that prematurely leaving will cause more problems.
Anyway, does anyone here believe Bush wants our troops out of Iraq by the end of June because he really feels Iraq will be able to stand on its own two feet by then, as a democratic nation besides...or is he looking to improve his re-election odds?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … 19]Article: General in Regime uniform
--Cindy

The troops aren't going anywhere in june. What's happening on June 30th is that administrative control of the country will shift from the Paul Bremer and the coalition provisional authority to an appointed Iraqi government (hopefully leading to elections within the year). The US troops will still be there however, and do the same things they're doing now, it's just their legal status will change from an occupation army to a contracted security force. It'll be many, many years before we're out of Iraq.

Josh Cryer · 2004-05-01 15:59:34

Okay, this thread has lost its last post too.

edit, nope, there it is... very odd.

Edited By Josh Cryer on 1083448886

Shaun Barrett · 2004-05-01 19:07:47

Thanks, Alt2War, for the links to news items about the alleged U.N. corruption. My impression is that it will take a long time to get to the bottom of this one. If enough people in high places, for example former ministers in the French government and politicians in Russia, were actually involved in bribery, one can imagine the lengths to which they'll have gone to cover their tracks.
I think about the possible consequences of U.N. corruption, if it happened: The time lost in dealing with Saddam, in tracking down WMD which may have been shifted to places like Syria or Iran, the lives lost through sanctions while 'oil-for-food' was being abused, even the possibility that U.N. voting could have been influenced!
What if votes against a U.N. mandate for war in Iraq were only made because some people were 'on the take' - a distinct possibility if the corruption did exist? Imagine the (necessary, in my view) war having been undertaken under the wing of the U.N. The grounds for misguided and inflammatory Arab objections to it would have been very significantly reduced. The whole scene in Iraq today could have been so much better and Al-Qa'ida's opportunistic use of the invasion for propaganda purposes very much less effective.

If a few hundred people, driven by unscrupulous self-interest, have actually done what is being suggested here, their crime is terrible.
Any suggestion that such appalling behaviour might be 'unscrupulous but not illegal' is a moral nonsense. If it isn't covered by any current legislation, then let's introduce new legislation to ensure such actions are definitely punishable by law - and very severely, too!

Phew! It's times like this I despair of humanity. What kind of a species are we that we can, with ample historical precedent as justification, entertain the thought that some of our number are capable of such treacherous selfishness?!

Alt2War · 2004-05-03 13:49:09

*There is another issue bothering me, about Iraq and etc.
I saw on the news last night that one of Saddam's old generals is back in Fallujah -- in charge apparently, and wearing his old uniform. Of course, we're pulling out of Fallujah.
How is -this- progress? A visible sign of Saddam's regime -- that general's uniform.
How can we possibly be ready to pull out of Iraq next month?
Yes, I know Fallujah is just one portion of a large country. But there will be a civil war regardless of anything, I think. I want our troops out of there ASAP, but I realize that prematurely leaving will cause more problems.
Anyway, does anyone here believe Bush wants our troops out of Iraq by the end of June because he really feels Iraq will be able to stand on its own two feet by then, as a democratic nation besides...or is he looking to improve his re-election odds?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … 19]Article: General in Regime uniform
--Cindy
::EDIT:: New Yorker magazine claims it's obtained *53-page* internal U.S. military document outlining abuses of Iraqi prisoners. This report adds to the list of abuses, including rape, pouring chemicals on detainees, etc.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … _dc_3]read me
Suppose we'll get another 9/11 for this?
I do agree with Shaun and Cobra Commander as to the nature of punishment the abusive soldiers should receive.

http://news.scotsman.com/international. … =501062004

It looks like this general may have been fired, or never hired, or perhaps the left hand just has no idea what the right hand is doing.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-04-30 01:02:31

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#77 2004-04-30 11:21:09

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#78 2004-04-30 12:36:32

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#79 2004-04-30 19:47:04

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#80 2004-05-01 01:07:33

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#81 2004-05-01 06:07:36

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#82 2004-05-01 06:28:26

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#83 2004-05-01 06:39:06

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#84 2004-05-01 06:50:51

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#85 2004-05-01 08:17:22

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#86 2004-05-01 09:25:48

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#87 2004-05-01 09:30:50

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#88 2004-05-01 10:08:46

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#89 2004-05-01 13:10:04

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#90 2004-05-01 15:07:19

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#91 2004-05-01 15:59:34

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#92 2004-05-01 19:07:47

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#93 2004-05-03 13:49:09

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#94 2004-05-03 14:02:31

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#95 2004-05-03 14:15:16

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#96 2004-05-03 15:39:55

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#97 2004-05-03 16:04:01

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#98 2004-05-03 16:22:07

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#99 2004-05-03 16:27:38

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#100 2004-05-03 21:43:13

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

Board footer

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2