Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Suharto the Model Killer
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:27 pm Post subject:

cerulean808"]Roo

Quote:

Lie. The UN was not an employee of Saddam, he was not the 'boss'. What a bizarre claim to make, but not surprising coming from a US Government patsy.

See the Oil for food scandal

Your words are not suprising coming from a Bathist apologist

Quote:

Who are you talk about deception? You swallowed the US Government lies about the WMD. You the one with a history of being deceived

Saddam never gave up his war.

Saddam had WMDs in the past.

I didn't think WMDs were the real reason for the war .

Quote:

The US allowed Saddam to smuggle oil worth billions to Syria, Jordan and Turkey, so that he could keep his regime financially lubricated. But the brutal sanctions remained in place

.

The US could not do anything about it.

Do you have any evidence that the US profited from it?

Quote:

you and Pilger cover up for Saddam's atrocities.

Quote:

No, Pilger has always opposed Saddam. He brought to the publics attention the Western Governments collusion with their 'asset',Saddam, in his atrocities. That's why you hate him and lie about him.

He only opposed Saddam when Saddam fought KHomeni.

I hate him cause he is an a disinformation artist and an apologist for anyone who is against the US.

Quote:

The original proposed oil for food program was politicised by the US ensuring Iraq rejection, also it wasn't going to avert a humanitarian disaster, not by a long way. US annihilation of the electrical and water system in Iraq followed by sanctions brought about the humanitarian disaster.

Saddam opposed the sactions and they were not in effect until 1996 or 1997.

Saddam never gave up his war. Forcing him to do so was a humanitarian act.

Quote:

There is no evidence Saddam "withheld stuff", smuggling occurred, his regime insulated itself against the sanctions - with billions the US Government permitted him to obtain. That items reportedly turned up on black markets in no way removes US Government culpability for the brutal sanctions it kept in place.

Quote:

Impact of Sanctions

Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq. That is why the sanctions regime has always specifically exempted food and medicine. The Iraqi regime has always been free to import as much of these goods as possible. It refuses to do so, even though it claims it wants to relieve the suffering of the people of Iraq.

� Iraq is actually exporting food, even though it says its people are malnourished. Coalition ships enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq recently diverted the ship M/V MINIMARE containing 2,000 metric tons of rice and other material being exported from Iraq for hard currency instead of being used to support the Iraqi people.

� Baby milk sold to Iraq through the oil-for-food program has been found in markets throughout the Gulf, demonstrating that the Iraqi regime is depriving its people of much-needed goods in order to make an illicit profit.

Photo 1: click here or on image for enlargement and caption

� Kuwaiti authorities recently seized a shipment coming out of Iraq carrying, among other items, baby powder, baby bottles, and other nursing materials for resale overseas (see photo 1).

Saddam Hussein's priorities are clear. If given control of Iraq's resources, Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region, not to improve the lot of the Iraqi people.

There is ample proof that lifting sanctions would offer the Iraqi people no relief from neglect at the hands of their government

� Sanctions prevent Saddam from spending money on rearmament, but do not stop him from spending money on food and medicine for Iraqis.

� Saddam's priorities are clear: palaces for himself, prisons for his people, and weapons to destroy Iraq's citizens and its neighbors. He has built 48 palaces for himself since the Gulf War. He would not use Iraq's resources to improve the lives of Iraqis. Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm

So tell us if Saddam was exporting humanitarian supplies that is sure evidence that he was keeping them from his own people isn't it?

Photo 1: Kuwait authorities recently seized a shipment coming out of Iraq carrying, among other items, baby bottles, and other nursing materials for resale overseas.

If Saddam was selling stuff then he was withholding stuff.

If it was on an Iraqi ship then he was withholding stuff.

More apologies from you disnformation artist.

Quote:

The US and British Governments blocked enormous amounts of humanitarian supplies and work under the oil for food program, for ever changing or absurd reasons, or just no reason at all.

Did not even start until 1996 or 1997

[

Quote:

The original purpose of the sanctions was to force Saddam out of Kuwait. The US Government kept them going way beyond the original justification. In fact your government said sanctions would stay in place until Saddam was gone. Some motivation for Saddam to cooperate with sanctions then. 100000s of kids die, because of a tyrant they had no power over and was sustained in power by the Us Government for a ling time.

Saddam never gave up his war. He continued to threaten Kuwait as late as 1994. You anti US apologist for Saddam Hussein

Quote:

The whole operation was run by the US with UK support in the UN. They controlled what went on. Corruption that occurred, did so under their watch.

You mean the US supported the food for oil scandle?

Quote:

That minor corruption is dwarfed by the US corruption outside the UN oil for food program as already pointed out.

Billions of dollars? Minor .

Quote:

Many US business were implicated in the kick backs as you must know as it was well covered by mainstream news sources at the time.

that was US government policy?

Quote:

Trying to dodge the point again. You try and smear the UN when it is your government which is mired in massive corruption scandals that dwarfs what occurred in the food for oil program which was a US Government operation anyway.

Do you have any evidence that the US profited from it?

The US will be mired in it if you have evidence the US profited from it. You creepy Saddam apologist.

Quote:

So what do we have?

Same old lies and twisting of the facts by Roo to white wash the US Government atrocities against the innocent people of Iraq.

We have Currelean apologizing for Saddam much the same way Pilger did.

cerulean808

Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul

Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:30 pm Post subject:

Roo

Quote:

See the Oil for food scandal

You need to see the US Oil for Food Scandal - it was run by your Government.

Quote:

I didn't think WMDs were the real reason for the war .

So you didn't believe your government, you thought it was misleading the American people?

Quote:

The US could not do anything about it.

Do you have any evidence that the US profited from it?

Yes it could but choose not too.

Instead it permitted billions to flow to Saddam to maintain his regime while US sanctions killed 100000s of innocent Iraq people.

I haven't claimed the US Government made money from the illegal oil sales. The relevant point is your government gave the smuggling the green light. It made political profit from making its allies Jordan, Turkey and Egypt happy.

Quote:

Saddam opposed the sanctions and they were not in effect until 1996 or 1997.

US politicisation guaranteed a rejection of the original offer which was never going to be enough anyway and didn't address the issue of US bombed Iraq water and power systems from which stemmed the humanitarian crisis.

The US and UK on the sanctions committee blocked huge amounts of desperately needed humanitarian aid.

Quote:

Saddam never gave up his war. Forcing him to do so was a humanitarian act.

Your government helped Saddam into power, armed him and protected him through his worst atrocities including gassing the Kurds. When he stopped cooperating with the US Government and they needed him gone, the propaganda change to 'humanitarian' concerns.

Quote:

So tell us if Saddam was exporting humanitarian supplies that is sure evidence that he was keeping them from his own people isn't it?

There is no evidence Saddam "withheld stuff", smuggling occurred, his regime insulated itself against the sanctions - with billions the US Government permitted him to obtain from oil smuggling outside the Oil for Food program. That items reportedly turned up on black markets in no way removes US Government culpability for the brutal sanctions it kept in place.

The accusation your press puppy friends like Sweeny made that Saddam held back ware houses full of humanitarian supplies was debunked as a US Government lie.

Quote:

I hate him cause he is an a disinformation artist and an apologist for anyone who is against the US.

Anyone against your US government you mean, the majority of Americans don't support the US Government but you are fanatically devoted to it.

You do a lot of hating, try thinking for once.

Quote:

You mean the US supported the food for oil scandle?

Your government oversaw the Oil for Food Program, ask it to explain its failure to stop kick backs.

But many US energy companies, like Texaco, profited handsomely, often hiding behind intermediaries.

Quote:

that was US government policy?

Was it UN policy?

Quote:

The US will be mired in it if you have evidence the US profited from it.

No the US Government is mired in it because it over saw it.

Quote:

Billions of dollars? Minor .

Minor compared to the US supported oil smuggling scam run outside of the food for oil program.

Quote:

We have Currelean apologizing for Saddam much the same way Pilger did.

Liar, I've never apologized for Saddam, he was always evil. But your government couldn't get enough of him. Your government cares nothing for human life or justice, and you, a US government patsy, are always white washing its crimes.

RACETRAITOR

Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea

Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:36 pm Post subject:

See if you can find the post I wrote in the RIP Suharto thread over on this Korean-American forum. I have the same username. http://www.soompi.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=193512

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:58 pm Post subject:

="cerulean808"]Roo

Quote:

See the Oil for food scandal

See it. Saddam was paying those who were supposed to be incharge.

It shows the UN wasn't doing its job.

Quote:

You need to see the US Oil for Food Scandal - it was run by your Government.

Yeah, and did the US profit from it:?

Quote:

So you didn't believe your government, you thought it was misleading the American people?

I thought it was a rationalization but the real reason was deeper than that

Quote:

Yes it could but choose not too.

what ? The US profited from it? Show the evidence.

Quote:

Instead it permitted billions to flow to Saddam to maintain his regime while US sanctions killed 100000s of innocent Iraq people.

It was Saddam. He didn't allow the food for oil.

and he withheld stuff.

and the UN people who gave their opionion like Haliday opposed not only all sanctions but also no fly zones lifted.

Quote:

I haven't claimed the US Government made money from the illegal oil sales. The relevant point is your government gave the smuggling the green light. It made political profit from making its allies Jordan, Turkey and Egypt happy.

What was the profit for the US? and what was the choice? To let Saddam go free.

Quote:

It was Saddam's fault not the US.

IF Saddam did not go along then it was his fault. Period.

Quote:

The US and UK on the sanctions committee blocked huge amounts of desperately needed humanitarian aid.

FACT:

Food for oil didn't start until 1996 or 1997 and Saddam withheld stuff.

FACT : Saddam opposed smart sanctions.

Quote:

Helped Saddam into power. Saddam came to power in 1979.

The US helped Saddam but less than Russia or France and it was while he was fighting with KHomeni.

Khomeni was also a fascist bigot like Saddam.

Quote:

The ship. If an Iraqi ship was shipping stuff then that means stuff was being withheld.

and then there are pictures.

Stop apologizing for Saddam you American hating radical.

And KEEPING SADDAM CONTAINED WAS JUSTIFIED CAUSE HE WOULD KILL AGAIN IF HE GOT FREE.

Quote:

The accusation your press puppy friends like Sweeny made that Saddam held back ware houses full of humanitarian supplies was debunked as a US Government lie.

Better Sweeny than the bigot Pilger.

Saddam was withholding stuff. How do you explain the ship that was intercepted.

And the UN showed either they weren't on top of what was going on in Iraq or that they didn't care what Saddam was doing.

And those you give in your reports opposed all sactions on Saddam.

Quote:

Anyone against your US government you mean, the majority of Americans don't support the US Government but you are fanatically devoted to it

.

Anyone against my government who support the enemies of the US

Quote:

You do a lot of hating, try thinking for once.

Pilger is a hater.

Quote:

Your government oversaw the Oil for Food Program, ask it to explain its failure to stop kick backs.

You mean the bribes to the UN?

Quote:

But many US energy companies, like Texaco, profited handsomely, often hiding behind intermediaries.

bribes to the UN?

Quote:

that was US government policy?

Was it UN policy?

Quote:

No the US Government is mired in it because it over saw it.

No only if they profited from it , and you have 0 evidence that the US had anythign to do with the bribes to the UN.

Quote:

Minor compared to the US supported oil smuggling scam run outside of the food for oil program.

Based on what?

The US contained Saddam . The UN took bribes from him.,

Quote:

You apologize for anyone who is against the US you don't care about human life or justice if anyone who is against the US is taking it away from them.

Dennis Haliday

Opposed:

1) sanctions on Iraq

2) No fly zones � which protected Kurds from Saddam

3) Opposed smart sanctions on Iraq

4) was in charge of the food for oil program. Which was corrupted.

5) He never said anything about corruption of the food for oil program.

Which means either :
a) He didn�t know which means that Saddam deceived him and so his opinion counts for little because he was out of touch.

b) He did know but he didn�t care which means that he wasn�t doing his job in that case his opinion ought to count for little because he wasn't doing his job.;

c) He knew what Saddam was doing but he supported it � that case his opinion ought not to count for much because he was in league with Saddam.

6) Opposed taking down Saddam too.

So he favored letting Saddam ( a killer worse than Idi Amin ) go free, which shows that he was soft on Saddam.

Hans von Sponeck

Opposed:

1) sanctions on Iraq

2) No fly zones � which protected Kurds from Saddam

3) Opposed smart sanctions on Iraq

Was in charge of the food for oil program. Which was corrupted.

He never said anything about this.

Which means either:

a) He didn�t know what was going on which means that Saddam deceived him and so his opinion counts for little because he was so out of touch.

b) He did know about the food for oil scandal but he didn�t care which means that case his opinion ought not count for much cause he wasn't doing his job.

c) He knew what Saddam was doing with food for oil but he supported it � that case his opinion ought not to count for much because he was in league with Saddam.

He also Opposed taking down Saddam�s regime .

So he favored letting Saddam ( a killer worse than Idi Amin ) go free, which shows that he was soft on Saddam.

NO PROOF?

Quote:

ize=18]Saddam sells UN drugs on black market
By Christina Lamb [/size]
(Filed: 24/09/2000)

CHILDREN'S medicines sent to Iraq by a British pharmaceutical company under a United Nations programme are being smuggled out of the country and sold on the black market in Lebanon to fund the lavish tastes of Saddam Hussein.

Glaxo-Wellcome has made official complaints to the Foreign Office and to the UN which oversees the Oil for Food Programme. This allows Baghdad to sell limited quantities of oil to buy vital humanitarian supplies for children, the sick and elderly.

The UN Security Council set strict controls to ensure that the medicines went to civilians and not the regime. But a spokesman for Glaxo-Wellcome told The Telegraph that the company has so far traced 15,000 units of Ventolin, part of a consignment of asthma medicine shipped to Iraq, circulating on the black market in Beirut.

The medicines had been transported to Lebanon using vehicles belonging to Iraq's ministry of transport. This indicates that the smuggling is being masterminded at the highest levels and undermines Saddam's claims that people are dying in Iraq because of shortages caused by the trade embargo imposed in 1991 after the invasion of Kuwait. However, with the Iraqi dictator still firmly in power despite a decade of sanctions, Britain and America are increasingly isolated as they continue to insist on the embargo. A Foreign Office official acknowledged: "Sanctions are clearly not working but they are desperately clinging on because no one knows what else to do."

Saddam is using the supposed shortages as a propaganda tool, showing pictures of sick children and blaming the West for his people's suffering when his regime is actually smuggling out medicines that it does receive. The Ventolin is thought to be just a fraction of the UN- approved Western medicines illegally sold on by Saddam's lieutenants in a scheme run by his son Uday. The Iraqi opposition estimate that millions of pounds are being raised in this way and used to finance Saddam's regime and the activities of his intelligence services as they step up their work in London and other European capitals.

Glaxo-Wellcome has launched a campaign to warn pharmacists in Lebanon and other Arab states not to sell the smuggled goods. The company is concerned about the safety implications of prescription drugs being sold over the counter as well as being undercut in markets to which it already exports. Last week the Lebanese authorities arrested a number of those involved in selling them.

"Obviously this is a worrying development," said an official at the UN programme office for Iraq. A recent report by the office to the Security Council projected oil revenues for Iraq from December 1999 to June 2000 at �6 billion, which should be spent on health and food, and complained that medicines worth �180 million were still lying in Iraqi warehouses and had not been distributed.

However, there is now increasing pressure to end sanctions both in the Arab world and beyond. Iraqi trade with Syria, Egypt and some Gulf countries has been increasing, as has support for an end to the embargo, and there have been several reports of oil being smuggled through Turkey and the UAE.

Last week Saddam's regime celebrated the arrival of a Russian flight at the newly-reopened Baghdad international airport and Aeroflot executives are awaiting Kremlin approval for the resumption of what will be the first regular commercial flights since the Gulf war. Passengers on last week's flight included oil executives interested in making deals with Iraq.

On Friday, a French plane flew from Paris to Baghdad, carrying doctors, athletes and artists defying a request from the UN committee that upholds the sanctions regime against Iraq. The sanctions committee was informed only on Thursday night of the Friday morning flight and France refused a request to delay the flight for 12 hours so that the issue could be studied. Welcoming the flight at Baghdad, Hussein Saeed, an Iraqi Olympic committee official, said the French had taken "a big initiative in breaking the embargo".

At the same time, boosted by record oil prices and the protests in Britain and across Europe over high fuel costs, Saddam has begun an intensive lobbying campaign to weaken the sanction regime. His efforts already seem to be having some effect. Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's new president, recently made a trip to Baghdad, the first elected head of state to visit since the Gulf war. Known for his anti-American rhetoric, President Chavez claimed his visit was necessary because Venezuela currently holds the presidency of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries and suggested it was time to end Iraq's isolation.

23 September 2000: French jet breaks UN embargo on Baghdad
19 September 2000: Oil price new weapon for warlike Saddam
18 September 2000: Russia breaks UN sanctions
11 August 2000: Venezuela breaks Saddam ban
2 August 2000: Britain and US isolated over tottering trade embargo on Iraq
17 February 2000: Saddam to blame for sanctions, says FO
24 May 1998: Saddam tries to set up phone network with cash for sick children
21 May 1996: Iraq oil-for-food deal to benefit Gulf War victims

NO PROOF?

Quote:

b]Impact of Sanctions [/b]

Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq. That is why the sanctions regime has always specifically exempted food and medicine. The Iraqi regime has always been free to import as much of these goods as possible. It refuses to do so, even though it claims it wants to relieve the suffering of the people of Iraq.

� Iraq is actually exporting food, even though it says its people are malnourished. Coalition ships enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq recently diverted the ship M/V MINIMARE containing 2,000 metric tons of rice and other material being exported from Iraq for hard currency instead of being used to support the Iraqi people.

� Baby milk sold to Iraq through the oil-for-food program has been found in markets throughout the Gulf, demonstrating that the Iraqi regime is depriving its people of much-needed goods in order to make an illicit profit.

Photo 1: click here or on image for enlargement and caption

� Kuwaiti authorities recently seized a shipment coming out of Iraq carrying, among other items, baby powder, baby bottles, and other nursing materials for resale overseas (see photo 1).

Saddam Hussein's priorities are clear. If given control of Iraq's resources, Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region, not to improve the lot of the Iraqi people.

There is ample proof that lifting sanctions would offer the Iraqi people no relief from neglect at the hands of their government

� Sanctions prevent Saddam from spending money on rearmament, but do not stop him from spending money on food and medicine for Iraqis.

� Saddam's priorities are clear: palaces for himself, prisons for his people, and weapons to destroy Iraq's citizens and its neighbors. He has built 48 palaces for himself since the Gulf War. He would not use Iraq's resources to improve the lives of Iraqis. Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm

NO PROOF?

cerulean808

Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul

Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:55 pm Post subject:

regicide

Quote:

See if you can find the post I wrote in the RIP Suharto thread over on this Korean-American forum.

I have the same username.

http://www.soompi.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=193512
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Took a look, seems there are plenty of Indonesian Crazies, as if there isn't enough American ones on the loose:

Roo

Quote:

Saddam was paying those who were supposed to be incharge...Yeah, and did the US profit from it:?

Again, your government created and ran the Food for Oil program. Every contract was up for scrutinizing by your government which never blocked a single humanitarian contract on pricing, but blocked lots of them on spurious grounds. Why?

You keeping harping on about personal financial profit as if it is the only possible motive.

Quote:

I thought it was a rationalization but the real reason was deeper than that

"rationalization"? "real reason"?

Your government mislead the American people in a massive propaganda campaign and all you can do is try and justify that. You are a US government patsy.

Quote:

what ? The US profited from it? Show the evidence...What was the profit for the US?

See above.

The relevant point is your government gave the smuggling the green light. It made political profit from making its allies Jordan, Turkey and Egypt happy.

So your government undermined the legitimacy of its own sanctions regime which killed 100000s of Iraq children but kept Saddam firmly in control, even though your government said sanctions wouldn't stop until Saddam was removed from power.

US companies profited e.g. Texaco, do you deny this?

Quote:

IF Saddam did not go along then it was his fault. Period.

The US politicised the sanctions.

The Oil for Food program would not have averted the humanitarian disaster if put in place earlier. The humanitarian disaster was the result of US destruction of the Iraq infrastructure and ensuing US driven sanctions. Your government turned Iraq into a giant refugee camp, collective punishment against the Iraq people for a leader they never had any control over, but who enjoyed a cosy relationship with the uS government during his atrocities including gassing Kurds and Iranians.

Quote:

The US helped Saddam but less than Russia or France and it was while he was fighting with KHomeni.

Liar, your government was in bed with Saddam well before Kohmeni.

And the logic that it was all good because Kohemni was just like Saddam is infantile.

Quote:

bribes to the UN?...you have 0 evidence that the US had anything to do with the bribes to the UN.

To the UN? You mean the US run Oil for Food program. Again, your government scrutinized every contract but didn't reject a single one for kick backs. Why not?

Quote:

Dennis Haliday [ + Hans von Sponeck ]

Opposed:

1) sanctions on Iraq

2) No fly zones � which protected Kurds from Saddam

3) Opposed smart sanctions on Iraq

4) was in charge of the food for oil program. Which was corrupted.

5) He never said anything about corruption of the food for oil program.

1) And rightly so, sanctions violated the economic and social rights of the Iraq people, they killed 100000s of innocent kids and further collapsed the Iraq infrastructure. Meanwhile leaving Saddam in control, his regime lubricated with billions that dwarfed the UN ( read US ) Oil for Food kick backs, by US permitted oil smuggling to US allies in the region.

2)The No Fly Zones had no UN legitimacy, neither discussed or approved by the UN. They were used to maintain a constant undeclared air war against Iraq by the US and Britain, bombing an already crippled country. The Turks were given permission to bomb the Kurds as much as they wanted, just like the recent Turkish attack. So much for your No fly zones.

UN personal on the ground were in great danger from the US, UK and Turkish indiscriminate bombings. Halliday and von Sponeck were more than justified in their position.

3)'Smart sanctions' didn't change anything. It was only tinkering with procedures. They didn't address the root cause of the crisis: US destruction of Iraq infrastructure and subsequent sanctions blocking reconstruction.

4)Halliday and van Sponeck weren't responsible for giving the contracts the green light. The sanctions committee was, that is to say the US government was. These two men oversaw the day to day running of the program in Iraq, which they did brilliantly despite US government attempts to get at them. Trust Roo to try and shift blame and engage in smear tactics.

5) See above.

Quote:

NO PROOF?

Again, there is no evidence Saddam "withheld stuff", smuggling occurred, his regime insulated itself against the sanctions - with billions the US Government permitted him to obtain from oil smuggling outside the Oil for Food program. That items reportedly turned up on black markets in no way removes US Government culpability for the brutal sanctions it kept in place.

The accusation your press puppy friends like Sweeny made that Saddam held back ware houses full of humanitarian supplies was debunked as a US Government lie.

Some baby powder that was deadly in Iraq because of no clean water, one ship of rice and one incident of medicine turning up in black markets ( rations sold by impoverished Iraqi's in return for food or another necessity probably.) Is that it? For a massive country of 10000000s over many years.

What a joke.

Roo, just your usual twisted logic, out right lies and smear tactics - predictable behaviour from a US government patsy.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 4:58 pm Post subject:

="cerulean808"]

Roo

Quote:

Saddam was paying those who were supposed to be incharge...Yeah, and did the US profit from it:?

Quote:

They weren't in charge of the smuggling or approve of Saddam giving money to nations on the UN security council for their votes.

Quote:

Abuse
In addition to criticism of the basic approach, the programme suffered from widespread corruption and abuse. Throughout its existence, the programme was dogged by accusations that some of its profits were unlawfully diverted to the government of Iraq and to UN officials. These accusations were made in many countries, including the US and Norway. [4]

Benon Sevan of Cyprus, who headed the programme, defended it, claiming that it had only a 2.2% administrative cost and that it was subject to more than 100 audits (internal and external), blaming restrictions from the Security Council for making the situation difficult. He also claimed that 90% of Iraq's population relied on the programme for its monthly food basket. While Benon Sevan was in charge of the programme, he stonewalled efforts to review and investigate the programme. [5] He ordered his staff that complaints about illegal payoffs should be formally filed with the whistleblower's country, making them public and allowing Iraq to bar any whistleblowers. In 2000, Dileep Nair, the UN corruption watchdog, wanted to determine the programme's level of vulnerability. Sevan, along with UN Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette, rejected any such investigation, claiming that it would be too expensive to be worthwhile. Sevan ordered the shredding of years' worth of documents concerning the programme.[4]

In response to these criticisms, and to evidence acquired after the United States invasion of Iraq, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed a UN investigatory panel, headed by American Paul Volcker, to review the programme.

Starting in April 2004,[6] accusations were made that skimmed profits were being used to buy influence at the UN and with Kofi Annan himself.

According to an interim report released on February 3, 2005 by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker's commission (see #Investigations below), much of the food aid supplied under the programme "was unfit for human consumption". The report concluded that Sevan had accepted nearly $150,000 in bribes over the course of the programme, and in 2005 he was suspended from his position at the United Nations as a result of the investigation of fraud in the programme. [7]

Peter van Walsum, the now-retired Ambassador of the Netherlands to the United Nations and chairman of the Iraq sanctions committee from 1999 to 2000, speculated in a recent book that Iraq deliberately divided the Security Council by awarding contracts to France, Russia, and China but not to the United Kingdom and the United States. He also stated he encountered a number of cases in which he felt the lack of Iraqi cooperation was designed to exacerbate the suffering of its own people. He also claimed that it was his opinion that the sanctions were not an effective deterrent.

Until 2001, the money for the Oil-for-Food Programme transited through the BNP Paribas bank, whose main private share-holder is Iraqi-born Nadhmi Auchi, a man estimated to be worth about $1 billion according to Forbes, and ranks 13th in Britain according to The Guardian. Auchi received a 15-month suspended sentence for his involvement in the Elf scandal, which has been qualified by the British newspaper as "the biggest fraud inquiry in Europe since the Second World War. Elf became a private bank for its executives who spent �200 million on political favours, mistresses, jewellery, fine art, villas and apartments".[5] Elf, an oil company, merged with TotalFina to become Total S.A. in 2003.

[edit] al Mada list
One of the earliest allegations of wrongdoing in the programme surfaced on 25 January 2004, when al Mada, a daily newspaper in Iraq, published a list of individuals and organizations alleged to have received oil sales contracts via the UN's Oil-for-Food Programme. The list came from over 15,000 documents which were reportedly found in the state-owned Iraqi oil corporation, which had close links to the Iraqi Oil Ministry.

Named in the list of beneficiaries were British MP George Galloway and his charity, the Mariam Fund; former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua; and Shaker al-Kaffaji, an Iraqi-American businessman who contributed US$400,000 to produce a film by ex-UN inspector Scott Ritter discrediting the weapons searches. India's foreign minister was removed from office because of his role in the scandal. Many prominent Russian firms and individuals were also included on the al Mada list. Even the Russian Orthodox Church was supposedly involved in illegal oil trading. The former assistant to the Vatican secretary of state, Reverend Jean-Marie Benjamin, is said to have received rights to sell 4.5 million barrels. George Galloway subsequently won two libel actions against the Christian Science Monitor and Daily Telegraph, which reported the allegations.[8][9]

The president of Oilexco Ltd, Arthur Millholland, whose name also appeared on the al Mada, list denied any wrongdoing, but confirms the charges that illegal surcharges were being paid to the Iraqi government by contractors. [10] However, the al Mada list does not discuss bribes paid to Iraq - it discusses bribes paid to individuals so that they would support Iraq. Few deny that in Iraq, like in many third-world countries, bribes and kickbacks were regularly paid to the leadership in order to get contracts, but some suggest that kickbacks would normally not occur in such countries when a UN-run programme was involved.

[edit] Operation of the scheme
The scheme is alleged to have worked thusly: individuals and organizations sympathetic to the Iraqi regime, or those just easily bribed, were offered oil contracts through the Oil-for-Food Programme. These contracts for Iraqi oil could then be sold on the open world market and the seller was allowed to keep a transaction fee, said to be between $0.15 and $0.50/barrel (0.94 and 3.14 $/m�) of oil sold. The seller was then to refund the Iraqi government a certain percentage of the commission.

Contracts to sell Iraq humanitarian goods through the Oil-for-Food Programme were given to companies and individuals based on their willingness to kick back a certain percentage of the contract profits to the Iraqi regime. Companies that sold commodities via the Oil-for-Food Programme were overcharging by up to 10%, with part of the overcharged amount being diverted into private bank accounts for Saddam Hussein and other regime officials and the other part being kept by the supplier.

The involvement of the UN itself in the scandal began in February 2004 after the name of Benon Sevan, executive director of the Oil-for-Food Programme, appeared on the Iraqi Oil Ministry's documents. Sevan allegedly was given vouchers for at least 11,000,000 barrels (1,700,000 m�) of oil, worth some $3.5 million. Sevan has denied the charges.

[edit] BNP
The sole bank handling funds transfers for the Oil-for-Food Programme was the New York branch of the Banque Nationale de Paris-Paribas, or BNP Paribas. This French bank was the sole bank administering the $64 billion UN programme. An investigation by the US House Committee on International Relations found that BNP Paribas made payments without proof that goods were delivered and sanctioned payments to third parties not identified as authorized recipients. Investigators estimate that the bank received more than $700 million in fees under the UN programme that began in 1996 and ended after the ousting of Saddam in March 2003.

[edit] Duelfer investigation
The Duelfer report, released on 30 September 2004, described in a key finding the impact of the Oil-for-Food Programme on Saddam's regime:

� The introduction of the Oil-For-Food Programme (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad�s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.[vol. I, p.1]
The final official version of the report cites only France, Russia and China (countries who were also strongly anti-war) as violators who paid kickbacks The Duelfer report's list (volume 1, annex B, p. 302) of all "Known Oil Voucher Recipients" includes each recipient's nationality, as well as a chart broken down by nationality (figure 16, p.166). The list indicates that 30 percent of the recipients were Russian; 15 percent were French; 10 percent were Chinese; 6 percent each were Swiss, Malaysian, and Syrian; and 4 percent each were Jordanian and Egyptian. American and German recipients were included in the approximate 20 percent of "recipients from other nations."

On June 5th, 2007, the German chapter of the anti-corruption organisation Transparency International (TI) lodged a complaint with the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi) against 57 German companies for allegedly paying $11.9m in kickbacks in the United Nations� Oil for Food Programme in Iraq.

[edit] Oil coupons as bribes
The US-funded satellite network Al Hurra broadcast a story on January 6, 2005 detailing allegations that Saddam's regime had bribed news reporters with oil coupons. Reporters named include Ahmed Mansour of Al Jazeera and Hamida Naanaa, a writer based in France and known for her pro-Saddam slant. Two types of oil coupons were used: silver coupons that entitled holders to nine million barrels of oil, and gold coupons that were worth more. Hamida Naanaa is said to have received a gold coupon.[11]

[edit] Complaints by Kurds
The Kurds had complained since the start of the programme that they were not being paid their fair share of the oil revenues. According to the guidelines set up by the Oil-for-Food Programme, the revenues were to be divided up in such a way as to protect Iraq's predominantly Kurdish regions. The allegations include claims that the Cairo office of the UN's World Health Organization, run by an individual alleged to have received oil sales contracts, managed to stall the building of a new general hospital for the Kurdish city of Sulaymaniya, even though the funds for the project had been available since 1998.

[edit] Potential Annan link
On June 14, 2005, two 1998 memos surfaced that appeared to link Kofi Annan to Cotecna Inspection S.A. The first one described a meeting between Annan and Cotecna while the company was bidding on the programme, after which the company raised its bid. A second one mentioned that Cotecna was confident that they would get the bid due to "effective but quiet lobbying" in New York diplomatic circles. The source of the documents was a Cotecna executive

[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme

So the US didn't oversea it , wasn't responsible for it and did not profit from it.

Of course this doesn't include any other illegal activities Saddam was involved in.

And as for Saddam he could not be trusted. Period.

Quote:

You keeping harping on about personal financial profit as if it is the only possible motive.

what else was a motive?

Quote:

"rationalization"? "real reason"?

wasn't the real reason

Quote:

Your government mislead the American people in a massive propaganda campaign and all you can do is try and justify that. You are a US government patsy.

Well Saddam was a serial aggressor. He would have rearmed had he gone free.

He had a WMD program , and advanced nuclear program and gassed his own citzens .

But the real reason was to force Bathists, Khomeni lovers and Al Qaedists to give up their war.

Quote:

what ? The US profited from it? Show the evidence...What was the profit for the US?

Quote:

See above.

not good enough of an answer

Quote:

The relevant point is your government gave the smuggling the green light. It made political profit from making its allies Jordan, Turkey and Egypt happy.

Had the US not done so there would have been no sanctions on Iraq at all. It is not like the UN was doing its job.

Quote:

So your government undermined the legitimacy of its own sanctions regime which killed 100000s of Iraq children but kept Saddam firmly in control, even though your government said sanctions wouldn't stop until Saddam was removed from power.

No , the US knew that there would be virtually no sanctions if the US did not allow it. Cause the UN would not contain

Saddam.

The UN was on Saddam's payroll.

Quote:

US companies profited e.g. Texaco, do you deny this?

Yes I would like to see that US companies made special money from the sanctions that would not ordinarlly made. And if they were involved in something wrong they probably have paid a fine for doing so.

Quote:

The US politicised the sanctions.

A) You are a Saddam apologist

B) what is "politicised the sanctions"

C) Keeping Saddam under control was a good thing cause it saved lives you supporter of anyone who is against the US.

Quote:

The Oil for Food program would not have averted the humanitarian disaster if put in place earlier. The humanitarian disaster was the result of US destruction of the Iraq infrastructure and ensuing US driven sanctions. Your government turned Iraq into a giant refugee camp, collective punishment against the Iraq people for a leader they never had any control over, but who enjoyed a cosy relationship with the uS government during his atrocities including gassing Kurds and Iranians.

a) how do you know.

b) Saddam would not go along until 1996 or 1997.

c) Saddam withheld stuff

d) You are just repeating Saddam's propaganda. You quote people who used the figures of Saddams' government without question.

3) Saddam would not give up his war. So it was a good thing to contain him.

Quote:

Liar, your government was in bed with Saddam well before Kohmeni.

Prove it. In fact in the 1970's the US had a very unfriendly relationship with Iraq. They did not even have diplomatic ties. Your are the liar

Quote:

And the logic that it was all good because Kohemni was just like Saddam is infantile.

No it was like supporting Stalin against Hitler.

Quote:

To the UN? You mean the US run Oil for Food program. Again, your government scrutinized every contract but didn't reject a single one for kick backs. Why not?

The US didn't know what was going on. Certainly not the extent.

It shows the UN wasn't doing its job containing Saddam.

[quote]Dennis Haliday [ + Hans von Sponeck ]

Quote:

.

No they didn't Saddam would not give up his war.

and they opposed NO FLY zones which protected Kurds.

Quote:

Meanwhile leaving Saddam in control, his regime lubricated with billions that dwarfed the UN ( read US ) Oil for Food kick backs,

You are a liar and all you do is repreat far left propaganda.

Quote:

2)The No Fly Zones had no UN legitimacy, neither discussed or approved by the UN. They were used to maintain a constant undeclared air war against Iraq by the US and Britain, bombing an already crippled country. The Turks were given permission to bomb the Kurds as much as they wanted, just like the recent Turkish attack. So much for your No fly zones.

They protected the Kurds from Saddam.

Actually Turkey went after the PKK. They did't often go after them. And the PKK and the Kurds the US protected are different.

And if you remember Kurds fled to Turkey and not the other way around. How do you account for that?

Quote:

The No Fly Zones had no UN legitimacy, neither discussed or approved by the UN.

Well you are sort of right here. They were dicussed by the UN but the US could not get approval - which just shows that the UN was not interested in containing Saddam

Quote:

UN personal on the ground were in great danger from the US, UK and Turkish indiscriminate bombings. Halliday and von Sponeck were more than justified in their position.

Really how many were killed because of them? That is the first I heard of them being a danger to UN personel. .

Halliday and von Sponeck wanted to let Saddam go.

UN no fly zones allowed the Kurds to be safe from Saddam And they were look at how their area did well after Saddam was contained. And you would deny them this cause you are upset that Saddam an enemy of the US and Israel was taken down. Which is your entire motivation for this thread .

Quote:

3)'Smart sanctions' didn't change anything. It was only tinkering with procedures. They didn't address the root cause of the crisis: US destruction of Iraq infrastructure and subsequent sanctions blocking reconstruction.

Sound like Saddam government.

The cause of the crisis was Saddam not giving up his war.

Quote:

4)Halliday and van Sponeck weren't responsible for giving the contracts the green light. The sanctions committee was, that is to say the US government was. These two men oversaw the day to day running of the program in Iraq, which they did brilliantly despite US government attempts to get at them. Trust Roo to try and *beep* blame and engage in smear tactics.

They would have let Saddam go.

The UN not the US was on Saddam's pay roll . They didn't say anything about it. They either didn't know what was going on or they didn't do their job.

Quote:

IF Stuff is on an Iraqi ship then Saddam didn't know? Then Iraq wasn't invovled.

IF stuff is being smuggled then it is being withheld . Period

Quote:

The accusation your press puppy friends like Sweeny made that Saddam held back ware houses full of humanitarian supplies was debunked as a US Government lie.

A no see the pictures , see the ship. You are a liar and an apologist for Saddam and any enemy of the US.

Quote:

Some baby powder that was deadly in Iraq because of no clean water, one ship of rice and one incident of medicine turning up in black markets ( rations sold by impoverished Iraqi's in return for food or another necessity probably.) Is that it? For a massive country of 10000000s over many years.

It shows Saddam was withholding stuff and selling stuff.

b]NO PROOF? [/b]

Quote:

Saddam sells UN drugs on black market
By Christina Lamb [/size]
(Filed: 24/09/2000)

CHILDREN'S medicines sent to Iraq by a British pharmaceutical company under a United Nations programme are being smuggled out of the country and sold on the black market in Lebanon to fund the lavish tastes of Saddam Hussein.

Glaxo-Wellcome has made official complaints to the Foreign Office and to the UN which oversees the Oil for Food Programme. This allows Baghdad to sell limited quantities of oil to buy vital humanitarian supplies for children, the sick and elderly.

The UN Security Council set strict controls to ensure that the medicines went to civilians and not the regime. But a spokesman for Glaxo-Wellcome told The Telegraph that the company has so far traced 15,000 units of Ventolin, part of a consignment of asthma medicine shipped to Iraq, circulating on the black market in Beirut.

The medicines had been transported to Lebanon using vehicles belonging to Iraq's ministry of transport. This indicates that the smuggling is being masterminded at the highest levels and undermines Saddam's claims that people are dying in Iraq because of shortages caused by the trade embargo imposed in 1991 after the invasion of Kuwait. However, with the Iraqi dictator still firmly in power despite a decade of sanctions, Britain and America are increasingly isolated as they continue to insist on the embargo. A Foreign Office official acknowledged: "Sanctions are clearly not working but they are desperately clinging on because no one knows what else to do."

Saddam is using the supposed shortages as a propaganda tool, showing pictures of sick children and blaming the West for his people's suffering when his regime is actually smuggling out medicines that it does receive. The Ventolin is thought to be just a fraction of the UN- approved Western medicines illegally sold on by Saddam's lieutenants in a scheme run by his son Uday. The Iraqi opposition estimate that millions of pounds are being raised in this way and used to finance Saddam's regime and the activities of his intelligence services as they step up their work in London and other European capitals.

Glaxo-Wellcome has launched a campaign to warn pharmacists in Lebanon and other Arab states not to sell the smuggled goods. The company is concerned about the safety implications of prescription drugs being sold over the counter as well as being undercut in markets to which it already exports. Last week the Lebanese authorities arrested a number of those involved in selling them.

"Obviously this is a worrying development," said an official at the UN programme office for Iraq. A recent report by the office to the Security Council projected oil revenues for Iraq from December 1999 to June 2000 at �6 billion, which should be spent on health and food, and complained that medicines worth �180 million were still lying in Iraqi warehouses and had not been distributed.

However, there is now increasing pressure to end sanctions both in the Arab world and beyond. Iraqi trade with Syria, Egypt and some Gulf countries has been increasing, as has support for an end to the embargo, and there have been several reports of oil being smuggled through Turkey and the UAE.

Last week Saddam's regime celebrated the arrival of a Russian flight at the newly-reopened Baghdad international airport and Aeroflot executives are awaiting Kremlin approval for the resumption of what will be the first regular commercial flights since the Gulf war. Passengers on last week's flight included oil executives interested in making deals with Iraq.

On Friday, a French plane flew from Paris to Baghdad, carrying doctors, athletes and artists defying a request from the UN committee that upholds the sanctions regime against Iraq. The sanctions committee was informed only on Thursday night of the Friday morning flight and France refused a request to delay the flight for 12 hours so that the issue could be studied. Welcoming the flight at Baghdad, Hussein Saeed, an Iraqi Olympic committee official, said the French had taken "a big initiative in breaking the embargo".

At the same time, boosted by record oil prices and the protests in Britain and across Europe over high fuel costs, Saddam has begun an intensive lobbying campaign to weaken the sanction regime. His efforts already seem to be having some effect. Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's new president, recently made a trip to Baghdad, the first elected head of state to visit since the Gulf war. Known for his anti-American rhetoric, President Chavez claimed his visit was necessary because Venezuela currently holds the presidency of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries and suggested it was time to end Iraq's isolation.

23 September 2000: French jet breaks UN embargo on Baghdad
19 September 2000: Oil price new weapon for warlike Saddam
18 September 2000: Russia breaks UN sanctions
11 August 2000: Venezuela breaks Saddam ban
2 August 2000: Britain and US isolated over tottering trade embargo on Iraq
17 February 2000: Saddam to blame for sanctions, says FO
24 May 1998: Saddam tries to set up phone network with cash for sick children
21 May 1996: Iraq oil-for-food deal to benefit Gulf War victims

NO PROOF?

Quote:

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm

NO PROOF?

Quote:

What a joke.

You are worse than a joke in that you are an apologist for Saddam and anyone else who is against the US.

Quote:

Roo, just your usual twisted logic, out right lies and smear tactics - predictable behaviour from a US government patsy

You are a Patsy and an apologist for anyone who is against the US.

Period.

Saddam didn't have a right to his war. Period. The US was right to prevent him from rearming or threatening anyone period.

By the way there are no more sanctions on Iraq .

Oh and one more thing

John Pilger is a left wing fascist.

Saddam didn't have a right to his war.

Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:34 pm; edited 2 times in total

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe