Oil For Food

[tonton]

Very interesting. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/02/iraq.oil.smuggle/index.html)

So... what do you think about that, Mr. Napes?

I just hope there is no hypocrisy involved in laying the blame here.

Looks like the Clinton and Bush Administrations both took a lot of cues from the Iran/Contra affair.

"How is it that you stand on a moral footing to go after the U.N. when they're responsible for 15 percent maybe of the ill-gotten gains, and we were part and complicit of him getting 85 percent of the money?" Menendez asked.

How, indeed?

[pfflam]

Originally posted by tonton
Very interesting. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/02/iraq.oil.smuggle/index.html)

So... what do you think about that, Mr. Napes?

I just hope there is no hypocrisy involved in laying the blame here.

Looks like the Clinton and Bush Administrations both took a lot of cues from the Iran/Contra affair.



How, indeed? The thesis of that article, that the US new about and condoned oil sales to its neighbors for stability and strategic etc, has been known about for a while . . . I even said as much to Naples . .. . but this is really good to get some tacs-to-the-floor proof.

Maybe now that pet-project that justifies all the lies will dissipate as it should have a long time ago

[Harald]

I'd put a laughy here if it wasn't so damn unfunny.

C'mon wingers. Let's hear it!

[groverat]

This is nothing surprising about this at all.

[dmz]

Now will any of you guys admitt that there is (was) more subtext to the Iraq decsision than you read in the papers, or could be gleaned from thinktank suedo-intel? With the news that the head of OFF was dirty, I would imagine EVERYONE was in on this -- the flow of Oil from Iraq is a huge factor, yet NO ONE was reporting on where it was going or even noticed the politicking surrounding who got what. Yet, we the 'informed' feel free to sit back with our ant's eye view of the situation and reduce things by fiat to whatever rubs us in the right direction.


Just wait, the pure and simple truth on this is only going to get less simple and even less pure.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by dmz
Now will any of you guys admitt that there is (was) more subtext to the Iraq decsision than you read in the papers, or could be gleaned from thinktank suedo-intel? With the news that the head of OFF was dirty, I would imagine EVERYONE was in on this -- the flow of Oil from Iraq is a huge factor, yet NO ONE was reporting on where it was going or even noticed the politicking surrounding who got what. Yet, we the 'informed' feel free to sit back with our ant's eye view of the situation and reduce things by fiat to whatever rubs us in the right direction.


Just wait, the pure and simple truth on this is only going to get less simple and even less pure.


Did you even read the article? It says THE USA has condoned and supported this. What do you think we should do. Attack the US?

[dmz]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Did you even read the article? It says THE USA has condoned and supported this. What do you think we should do. Attack the US?


There are two 'sins' beomg comitted here, the first is picking and choosing what to shocked over, and the second is making blanket observations based on evidence that is BY DEFINTION intentionally obfuscated in it's extent, origin, and purpose.

I would suspect that those Dasterdly bad guys writing foriegn policy for the last several administrations figured that they had better remain in play in the region during OFF rather than let the Russians and Chinese have all the fun, and that all the cloak and dagger politicking over all the money, and promises of money, WMD, etc. is probably not fully understood by the various players in this game.

What is worse is people seizing on bits and pieces of politically charged information and building a swarthy undeveloped villian from them.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by dmz
There are two 'sins' beomg comitted here, the first is picking and choosing what to shocked over, and the second is making blanket observations based on evidence that is BY DEFINTION intentionally obfuscated in it's extent, origin, and purpose.

I would suspect that those Dasterdly bad guys writing foriegn policy for the last several administrations figured that they had better remain in play in the region during OFF rather than let the Russians and Chinese have all the fun, and that all the cloak and dagger politicking over all the money, and promises of money, WMD, etc. is probably not fully understood by the various players in this game.

What is worse is people seizing on bits and pieces of politically charged information and building a swarthy undeveloped villian from them. That's cute but misses teh whole point:

The agency in charge of overseeing the whole program was ruled with an iron fist bu the US and Britain . . . they oversaw the whole thing, there was NO chance Russia or China were going to "get Rich" . . . . (besides they both have their own oil) . . . all goods going in or out were overseen by the US, this was not a small effort, it has been described as one of the single largest international endeavors undertaken: but the US had strict view of all exchanges . . . they are reknown even for holding imports of important goods for months on months until minor bureacratic details were taken care of.
It is the US too, who eversaw and allowed the sale of Oil to Syraia and Turkey and etc!!!

Now, I am not pointing this out to make 'Amerikkka' the bad guy, no!!!
Because I don't really give a damnb who got rich with OFF

What I think is very important is to realize that the whole RED HERRING of the OFF graft was just that: a RED HERRING

Used by wing-nut propaganda squads, handed out to knee-jerk wing-nut bogs and eventually even sifted down to the media . . . it actually became a defacto EXCUSE for teh war . . . when the LIES were shown to be what they were: LIES
except that the whole UN=OFF=Bad-Guys=Reason they didn't want us to INVADE is a complete FICTION!!!!


let me repeat this: this shows that the statement that the UN (and France in particular) didn't want us to go to war because of the OFF program is complete FALSHOOD . . . and belongs only in the gullets of idiots like fuckfrance.com . . .

The real reason that they didn't want us to go to war, again, is because they knew our info was bad!!! . . .
Hell . . . . anybody who was paying attention knew!!

[Aurora]

They new our info was bad and were busy cutting deals with Saddam as were a few others.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by Aurora
They new our info was bad and were busy cutting deals with Saddam as were a few others. Yeah right . . . they were "getting Rich" off of a few hundred million dollars . .. through the highly organized and very strict oversight of an AMerican agency and right through borders patrolled by 90+% AMerican ships and surviellance . . .

Hah . . . what idiocy!! as if a few million$ would matter . . . a tank costs almost as much as we're talking when we talk OFF!!

Ther ewere other real reasons for teh UN not wanting us to invade, namely: that they KNEW we were FULL OF SHIT !!

RE: WMD

[dmz]

This has little to do with "getting rich" and everything to do with influence in the region. It's complicated -- and everyone with an intelligence apparatus probably knew this was going on -- but it was never brought into what was fed to the public. Hmmm.... what did Albright know, and when did she know it?

I'd be willing to bet there is more where that came from.

[addabox]

Man, here we go again.

When the motivations for wing-nuttery are laid out, it's always very simple: bold statements of "values" stressing the merits of "decisiveness", which of course are understood to be the corrective for liberal hand wringing and dithering. It's good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, us vs. them, ad nauseam.

When things don't turn out so great, the world is suddenly very complicated, in fact, too complicated to ever really know anything for sure. Were the wild allegations of the right off-base? Impossible to say, on account of the complexity and all.

But rest assure next time there's a fool's errand to go charging off on things will get real simple again, and anybody who says otherwise is a french looking, feckless faggot.

[dmz]

I don't think that countries are willing to be transparent in their motives. Invasion over WMD/disarmament was TECHNICALLY correct, but I don't understand why anyone would dream that IS ALL that is happening here.

[addabox]

Originally posted by dmz
I don't think that countries are willing to be transparent in their motives. Invasion over WMD/disarmament was TECHNICALLY correct, but I don't understand why anyone would dream that IS ALL that is happening here.

Hmmm....... could it be..... because the people that engineered the invasion kept saying so over and over again in the most unequivocal terms imaginable?

[giant]

Originally posted by dmz
I don't think that countries are willing to be transparent in their motives. Invasion over WMD/disarmament was TECHNICALLY correct, but I don't understand why anyone would dream that IS ALL that is happening here.
Hmmm...you seem to be saying that the war wasn't really motivated by WMD or the spread of democracy. ;)

[pfflam]

Originally posted by giant
Hmmm...you seem to be saying that the war wasn't really motivated by WMD or the spread of democracy. ;) No . . . apparently the real reasons are completely beyond any of us, beyond Congress, beyond the UN, beyond anybody but the small group in Power known as our administration . . . and of them, only a few: Cheney, Wollfowitz. Fieth, Perl, Bush, Rumsfeld . . . and then, reluctantly, or maybe not at all, Powel and Rice . . .

Yeah, wars waged out from secret reasons by a handful of Ideologically motivated men . . . . sounds like a reciepe for disaster. . . or another description of fascism.

[dmz]

Originally posted by giant
Hmmm...you seem to be saying that the war wasn't really motivated by WMD or the spread of democracy. ;)

this is tricky. very tricky.

Let's pretend it's the early 90s
You Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Iran, the Wacky Wahibi House of Saud, and host of other players. Iraq has the world's 2nd(?) largest reserves, and we know that chinese and russian interests are in play there as well as a European country or two. You have the Kurd issue, the Iran issue the turkey won't stand for a Kurdish state issue, Jordan-as-semi-friendly issue, Syria screwing around with Hamas issue, the Palestinian issue, and on and on and on.

THEEEEEENNNNNNNN you come in a pinch off Iraq's oil to Turkey and Jordan? I can't see this -- why they couldn't got to Saudi for oil? who knows, maybe Japan is hogging itall -- at any rate, you DON"T want to run around pissing off even more countries in the area. (apparently Europe is fine)

I honestly don't understand all the crap that is going on in the area, except SH having WMD, or might have the money to make some WMD, or someday do what Iran is doing and make really big WMD, was bad and probably with 9/11 pushed those neocon devils right over the edge and into doing something. How in the name James Monroe anyone could balance the countries in the region to seek favorable foriegn policy for America, while still trying to keep Israel from enacting the Samson defense, or getting Iran to stop with their WMD, while still keeping the Russian's and Chinese paws off the situation is got to be like trying to have sex with a beehive.

[dmz]

Originally posted by pfflam
No . . . apparently the real reasons are completely beyond any of us, beyond Congress, beyond the UN, beyond anybody but the small group in Power known as our administration . . . and of them, only a few: Cheney, Wollfowitz. Fieth, Perl, Bush, Rumsfeld . . . and then, reluctantly, or maybe not at all, Powel and Rice . . .

Yeah, wars waged out from secret reasons by a handful of Ideologically motivated men . . . . sounds like a reciepe for disaster. . . or another description of fascism.

cut it out pfflam this isn't the movies!!;)

Acutally I doubt the starchamber has much more of a lock on what is going on than anyone else -- except they are trying to get something accomplished, wich undoubtalby is partially relying on game theory to function. I think if we knew the truth, it would scare the hell out of us. What make this even more complex, is that you have to realize that the russians, chinese, and others are angling for something that floats their boat as well.

[addabox]

"My fellow Americans. Something is taking its course in the middle east. Something important. There are quite a few countries there, and they interact with one another. How, exactly, is beyond human ken. But I will tell you this. It is vital to American interests that something happen, and happen soon. Therefore, I am going before Congress to present my plan to invade Iraq. I can't tell you what this will accomplish, exactly, but rest assure it will have an effect. My analysts tell me that the nature of that effect will be wide ranging, if unknowable. But never let it be said that the United States stood by and did nothing just because the world is too complex to understand. We will act. And there will a reaction. God bless us one and all. Goodnight"

[tonton]

So, it's very clear what DMZ is saying here.

Cheating for money is bad.
Cheating for power is good.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by dmz
cut it out pfflam this isn't the movies!!;)

Acutally I doubt the starchamber has much more of a lock on what is going on than anyone else -- except they are trying to get something accomplished, wich undoubtalby is partially relying on game theory to function. I think if we knew the truth, it would scare the hell out of us. What make this even more complex, is that you have to realize that the russians, chinese, and others are angling for something that floats their boat as well. Do you realize that in the last two posts you admitted to this: 'I am willing to let my government do whatever because, golly gee, I just don't know . . . and hey . . . they don't either. . . . so of course they didn't tell us what they know'

Is it better that they don't know and act through pretend certainty
then
that they think that they know and act through pretend certainty and dissimulation.

would the formere somehow seem better to you . . .
a small liar rather than a great deciever somehow?!

And BTW, since when has shadowy possible dealings and possible shifts in foriegn economies been an excusable reason for the United States to INVADE a country that did not start aggressions against it?!?!

[giant]

dmz, maybe we aren't so different after all. :)

But like pfflam said
Originally posted by pfflam
Yeah, wars waged out from secret reasons by a handful of Ideologically motivated men . . . . sounds like a reciepe for disaster. . . or another description of fascism.

[dmz]

gaint, pflamm, addabox:

My Friday night spanking -- oh boy.

There is a certain amount of pragmatisim to keeping the genie in the bottle. Remember, this is the art of the possible.

As for the fog of war, competition, etc. SH in the end did not, 'disarm' -- he was an outlaw, in one way or another, and that was technically enough to go in. Freedom and democracy was the point, we are told, and that is more or less the facade of what is almost certainly the 'active ingredient' in all of this -- keeping the furners out and wedging a 'whatever' in the ME equation.

It's not that the neocon illuminati 'knows all' or that they are fumbling in the dark, it's that it is somewhere in the middle -- yes it was 'okay' to go in and get Saddam, and yes it's about freedom and democracy, but the real question is how this impacts national security -- it has to be, there are much cheaper ways to 'go after the oil'. This has been incredibly expensive --and yes it will boost the economy to some extent, all wars do. But unless Bush is the kind of guy who had the twin towers rigged with sintex and detonating cord, I would imagine this has little to do with money or oil (unless we are gaurding the reserves long-term) and everything to do with draining the swamp by beginning with lancing a decade-long festering Boil. Honeslty, guys, one Kim Jong Il on the planet is enough. When you look at how badly OFF backfired --- which probably amounted to trying to put a Mafia Don on welfare --- I can't see letting SH 'walk' and allowing him to end sanctions and continue his recklessness, all while sitting on a massive oil reserve with enough wealth to buy any loyalty -- probably 'rent' is a better word.

How this services Turkey, Jordan, bla, bla, bla is where all this becomes murky.


Edit:

Are there neocons with a plan? yes. Would Europe at large like to see American taken down a peg? yes. The same goes for russia, and china. Anyway, long day....goodnight.

[pfflam]

Besides all the other things that you miss, you miss the very important fact that OFF actually was the ONLY means for Iraqis to get many absolutely necessary items: like medecine and food!!

And in that regard it actually did very much good.

[tonton]

Yeah right. SH did not disarm. :rolleyes: