How about some more information for some balance? You know both sides of story? Or are you ready to admit you are ignorant and don't have full information?
The courts heard the case and found him guilty. That means he's guilty.
Keeping criminal scumbag cronies of the Bush administration - people like, say, Ahmad Chalabi - from having any involvement would be a nice start.
Is that all?
And do you not think the UN would be bringing in criminal scumbags of their own?
Quote:
I think you may have misread that article. The accounts in which the proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil were held had balances of $12 billion. The UN administrative costs at the time that article was written were $1 billion.
It also collects a 2.2 percent commission on every barrel - more than $1 billion to date - that is supposed to cover its administrative costs. According to staff members, the program's bank accounts over the past year have held balances upward of $12 billion.
So the UN takes $1 billion for administrative costs and $12 billion for... what?
Well you can't find out because the process was not open. Nothing "transparent" about it.
No, they weren't. The Christian Science Monitor's papers were forgeries.
From your own article:
The Daily Telegraph turned down the documents used by the Monitor. The paper did publish its own allegations about Mr Galloway several days earlier, based on files retrieved from Baghdad's bombed-out foreign ministry by staff reporter David Blair.
I don't know why you think anyone is trying to ignore the effect of the sanctions...nor why you imagine that the UN is going to impose them again.
When did I say that the UN would impose them again? Why should we think that the UN could handle this situation when they have shown time and time again everything they do in Iraq has led to millions dying?
I'd still like to see some specifics on what the UN would improve over the US alone.
How about some more information for some balance? You know both sides of story? Or are you ready to admit you are ignorant and don't have full information?
Do you know another side to the story? Lets hear it then. Everything I have heard indicates that Chalabi is a convicted felon whose acts of fraud and embezzlement destroyed a number of people's lives.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
And do you not think the UN would be bringing in criminal scumbags of their own?
No, I don't.
Quote:
So the UN takes $1 billion for administrative costs and $12 billion for... what?
To pay for food and aid to send to Iraq.
Quote:
The Daily Telegraph's papers are not forgeries.
I wasn't aware that the Telegraph's allegations were based on a different set of documents, but I'm not going to take the allegations as fact until I know more about the situation. Galloway launched libel proceedings shortly after the editorial you linked to was published, so the burden of proof (proof that Galloway took the money, not that the documents are genuine) is now on the Telegraph. I expect we'll hear more about this case as it unfolds.
Quote:
Why should we think that the UN could handle this situation when they have shown time and time again everything they do in Iraq has led to millions dying?
Because the sanctions were applied to a completely different situation and because the UN has successfully managed regime transitions similar to the one currently required in Iraq.
Oh yeah, there's also the issue of cost. Even if you do not believe that there are any ligitimacy issues that mean the UN should be rebuilding Iraq over the US, you can't be thrilled at the prospect of having to pay for it all.
"criminal scumbag"? Hummmm? What do you base that on? Please give full details. Both sides of the story. Try not to be bias and ignorant.
Oh, and don't forget that all of his 'defectors' turned out to be completely FOS. Not even Bush FOS. They were Coulter-level FOS, unicorns and giant rock people FOS.
So in this instance the UN will act with pure good will and no one in the massive bureaucracy will skim money and corrupt the system?
You seem to have a religious faith in the UN that defies history and fact. Difficult to argue with.
Quote:
To pay for food and aid to send to Iraq.
Read the article, dear, the paragraph above.
Since its inception, the program has overseen more than $100 billion in contracts for oil exports and relief imports combined.
$100 billion for "food and aid"
$1 billion for "administrative costs" (Does this not seem a tad outlandish?)
$12 billion for.... ?
Quote:
I wasn't aware that the Telegraph's allegations were based on a different set of documents, but I'm not going to take the allegations as fact until I know more about the situation.
The reporter found them in Iraq, a source who knows the Iraqi official verified it was his handwriting. The handwriting on some of the letters are Galloway's.
Quote:
Galloway launched libel proceedings shortly after the editorial you linked to was published, so the burden of proof (proof that Galloway took the money, not that the documents are genuine) is now on the Telegraph. I expect we'll hear more about this case as it unfolds.
And not one single shred of doubt has been brought out against the Telegraph. Not one. The Christian Science Monitor's accusations were debunked very quickly, yet 6 months later absolutely nothing actually questioning the documents the Telegraph found.
It's nice to see you put religious faith in a system that has killed millions but distrust a spotless journalistic report when it flies against your religious belief.
Quote:
Because the sanctions were applied to a completely different situation and because the UN has successfully managed regime transitions similar to the one currently required in Iraq.
So in this instance the UN will act with pure good will and no one in the massive bureaucracy will skim money and corrupt the system?
You seem to have a religious faith in the UN that defies history and fact. Difficult to argue with.
Not a religious faith, just a greater degree of faith that it will conduct its affairs with transparency and efficiency than I have in the Bush administration.
Quote:
Read the article, dear, the paragraph above.
Dear? Does this mean I can call you sweetie?
Quote:
$100 billion for "food and aid"
$1 billion for "administrative costs" (Does this not seem a tad outlandish?)
$12 billion for.... ?
I'll grant that that IHT article is not as clear as it could be, but you really do seem to be misreading it.
By way of background...
The oil-for-food program started at the end of 1996
Under the terms of the program, Iraq could sell $1 billion of oil every 90 days
The proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil went into escrow accounts managed by the UN
The money in these accounts was then used for food and aid (and reparations to Kuwait and skimming by Saddam and UN administrative costs)
Total revenues from December 1996 to December 2002 were approximately $60.8 billion
Total revenues for 2002 were approximately $11 billion
The $100 billion in the IHT article refers to the total value of oil export contracts and relief import contracts combined since December 1996. The $12 billion refers to highest balance held in the escrow accounts managed by the UN over the year prior to the IHT article. The only real criticism that can be applied to that $12 billion is that it was not spent on food and aid more quickly.
Were the $1 billion administrative costs outlandish? I don't know. How much should the administration have cost?
Quote:
The reporter found them in Iraq, a source who knows the Iraqi official verified it was his handwriting. The handwriting on some of the letters are Galloway's.
And not one single shred of doubt has been brought out against the Telegraph. Not one. The Christian Science Monitor's accusations were debunked very quickly, yet 6 months later absolutely nothing actually questioning the documents the Telegraph found.
Let's see what comes out during the libel case, shall we? If the Telegraph is able to prove its allegations it will. I still don't know enough about the situation to accept them as indisputable fact. Neither, I suspect, do you.
To be honest, it wouldn't particularly surprise me if Galloway had in fact dealt with Iraqi intelligence under Saddam. His apparent support for Saddam's regime over the years certainly doesn't portray him in a very favorable light...but again, it is currently his word against the Telegraph's that he took money so we'll have to see what the result of the libel case is.
I don't see what relevance this has to the discussion we are having on the UN anyway. Galloway is (or was, before his suspension) a member of the British government who has frequently been critical of both the UN and the US in their dealings with Iraq.
Quote:
Similar to the one required in Iraq?? Where!?
Cambodia, Namibia, El Salvador...didn't we cover this already?
Not a religious faith, just a greater degree of faith that it will conduct its affairs with transparency and efficiency than I have in the Bush administration.
The oil-for-food program was less transparent than the current Iraq rebuilding effort. What makes you believe the UN process will be "transparent"? Do you have any historical precedent to back it?
This transparency thing you keep bringing up is a blatant lie. There is no truth to it at all. click (same article as IHT but in original context at NYTimes)
It is impossible to find out for certain. The quantities of goods involved in shipments are confidential, and almost all descriptions on the contract lists made public by the United Nations are so generic as to be meaningless. For example, a deal with Russia approved last Nov. 19 was described on the contract papers with the enigmatic notation: "goods for resumption of project." Who are the Russian suppliers? The United Nations won't say. What were they promised in payment? That's secret.
As far as efficiency, I'll point to Yugoslavia. Efficiency is almost as big a joke as transparency. So efficient was the UN that millions of Iraqis were killed by sanctions! Like a Swiss watch!
Quote:
Dear? Does this mean I can call you sweetie?
Ms. Jackson if you're nasty.
Quote:
The only real criticism that can be applied to that $12 billion is that it was not spent on food and aid more quickly.
Or at all.
Tell me, kneelbeforezod, why was it that France and Co. took so long to eliminate the oil-for-food program and the sanctions after Saddam was ousted?
Profiteering on the blood of the Iraqi civilians? SURELY NOT!
Were the $1 billion administrative costs outlandish? I don't know. How much should the administration have cost?
Quote:
His apparent support for Saddam's regime over the years certainly doesn't portray him in a very favorable light...but again, it is currently his word against the Telegraph's that he took money so we'll have to see what the result of the libel case is.
Well, the Telegraph has actual documentation that appeared genuine to the same man who dismissed the Christian Science Monitor's documents as fake.
We don't know *everything*, but we know quite a bit. I don't see such a careful attitude from you concerning what you perceive to be a US failure in Iraq, and you know even less about that than you do the Galloway scam.
Quote:
I don't see what relevance this has to the discussion we are having on the UN anyway.
Because it all took place under the polar-opposite-of-transparent umbrella of the UN.
Quote:
Cambodia, Namibia, El Salvador...didn't we cover this already?
The oil-for-food program was less transparent than the current Iraq rebuilding effort.
Where has there been any transparency in the current, US managed, Iraq rebuilding effort? Can you provide financial information pertaining to the Development Fund for Iraq (created by the UN to replace the il-for-food program at the behest of the US and under the control of the Coalition Provisional Authority)? Did the UN provide absolute legal protection for French, Russian or Syrian interests in Iraqi oil in the manner that the Bush administration has provided for the US corporations that currently have exclusive access to Iraqi oil contracts?
Quote:
As far as efficiency, I'll point to Yugoslavia. Efficiency is almost as big a joke as transparency.
You point to failure in Yugoslavia, I point to success elsewhere. Where the UN has been involved in assisting the transition to democratically elected governments it has been successful. Where failures have occurred it was due in part to the fact that large scale conflicts were still in progress?which is not the case in Iraq. How does the track record of the US - or any other single nation - match up?
Quote:
Or at all.
Are you saying that the $12 billion never made it into Iraq? Can you verify this?
Quote:
I don't see such a careful attitude from you concerning what you perceive to be a US failure in Iraq, and you know even less about that than you do the Galloway scam.
I knew nothing about the aspects of the Galloway allegations discussed in the last few posts prior to today, but I?ve read enough about the current situation in Iraq to know that it is far from being the success you appear to think it is.
Quote:
Because it all took place under the polar-opposite-of-transparent umbrella of the UN.
Where has there been any transparency in the current, US managed, Iraq rebuilding effort?
Well, the fact that we're discussing Bechtel getting $X and Halliburton getting $X should be the first indication that we know a bit about what's going on. So there's some. Then we know how many Iraqis are being hired (enough to say it's insufficient); so there's some more.
Quote:
Can you provide financial information pertaining to the Development Fund for Iraq (created by the UN to replace the il-for-food program at the behest of the US and under the control of the Coalition Provisional Authority)? Did the UN provide absolute legal protection for French, Russian or Syrian interests in Iraqi oil in the manner that the Bush administration has provided for the US corporations that currently have exclusive access to Iraqi oil contracts?
Dunno, you can do the google hunting to make your own point. I eagerly await your audit.
Quote:
Where the UN has been involved in assisting the transition to democratically elected governments it has been successful. Where failures have occurred it was due in part to the fact that large scale conflicts were still in progress?which is not the case in Iraq.
Yep, no large-scale conflicts in Iraq. Just 200k+ American soldiers who are attacked every day from all angles. And the UN headquarters being bombed repeatedly.
Quote:
Are you saying that the $12 billion never made it into Iraq? Can you verify this?
None of it can be varified, that's the problem. The process was closed and secretive.
Quote:
I knew nothing about the aspects of the Galloway allegations discussed in the last few posts prior to today, but I?ve read enough about the current situation in Iraq to know that it is far from being the success you appear to think it is.
You can't address my argument so you create a straw-man to beat up? Nice.
What level of success do I think we are having in Iraq? All this thinking and speaking for myself is a bit tiring, perhaps you could just go ahead and tell me what I think so I don't have to do the work.
Quote:
Galloway didn?t work for or with the UN.
1) Never said he did.
2) Saddam didn't work for the UN either, and he made a tidy bundle. So working for the UN is hardly a requisite for profiting from their secrecy, incompetence and corrupt nature.
Well, the fact that we're discussing Bechtel getting $X and Halliburton getting $X should be the first indication that we know a bit about what's going on. So there's some. Then we know how many Iraqis are being hired (enough to say it's insufficient); so there's some more.
And how do we know what little we do know? Through openness by the Bush administration or investagative journalism and leaked information?
Quote:
Yep, no large-scale conflicts in Iraq. Just 200k+ American soldiers who are attacked every day from all angles. And the UN headquarters being bombed repeatedly.
Compared to civil war this is hardly a large-scale conflict. Sounds more like a police action...and we all know how well the US has managed police actions in the past.
Quote:
Dunno, you can do the google hunting to make your own point. I eagerly await your audit.
I've supported my points throughout this discussion - so far all you've been able to come up with were articles on the oil-for-food programs that you completely misinterpreted (and that it took me three posts to explain to you properly) and completely irrelevant allegations about George Galloway.
click (You can get an Excel file of sub-contracts there, even)
Quote:
Compared to civil war this is hardly a large-scale conflict. Sounds more like a police action...and we all know how well the US has managed police actions in the past.
And we also know how well the UN handles conflicts, they stand idly by and watch while they happen, waiting until all the blood has been shed to come in and give each other medals and hold grandstanding trials.
Quote:
I've supported my points throughout this discussion - so far all you've been able to come up with were articles on the oil-for-food programs that you completely misinterpreted (and that it took me three posts to explain to you properly) and completely irrelevant allegations about George Galloway.
I misread the articles about how the Oil-For-Food program was secretive and open to corruption? Hmm. I guess that paragraph I just posted doesn't exist?
Let me try again... Who are the Russian suppliers? The United Nations won't say. What were they promised in payment? That's secret.
click (You can get an Excel file of sub-contracts there, even)
That the current contractors are listing their sub-contractors is good...but neither USAID nor the CPA directly provide greater levels of information on the current programs than the UN did on the oil-for-food program. The various UN agencies filled an analogous role under the oil-for-food program to the one corporations like Bechtel are filling under the current programs. If you look to the appropriate agencies you'll find plenty of information on suppliers and contractors.
Quote:
And we also know how well the UN handles conflicts, they stand idly by and watch while they happen, waiting until all the blood has been shed to come in and give each other medals and hold grandstanding trials.
And the Bush administration gives out decks of cards and puts the criminals back in power instead of trying them.
Quote:
I misread the articles about how the Oil-For-Food program was secretive and open to corruption?
You wrote that "The UN collected $12 billion in 'administrative costs.'" The UN in fact collected $1 billion in administrative costs. So either you misunderstood the article or you attempted to distort the content to better suit your argument. What corruption and skimming existed in the oil-for-food program did not stem from the UN.
Quote:
Who are the Russian suppliers? The United Nations won't say.
The Russian supplier that the IHT article was so concerned with is Technopromexport, a company that had built power plants in Iraq in the late 1980s and started working on oil-for-food projects in 1999 (see Rehabilitation of Dokan Hydro Power Plant). The project that was being resumed was the construction of Youssifiyah power plant, which Technopromexport had been working on at the outbreak of the Gulf War. Details of the goods in question are available here (scroll to page 26).
Perhaps if Claudia Rosett were capable of performing basic research for her articles she could have discovered these answers for herself?
Quote:
What were they promised in payment? That's secret.
How is it secret? They received money generated by the sale of Iraqi oil.
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you...I actually had to do work today...
I hate when that happens.
Quote:
The various UN agencies filled an analogous role under the oil-for-food program to the one corporations like Bechtel are filling under the current programs. If you look to the appropriate agencies you'll find plenty of information on suppliers and contractors.
I don't see it. I'm not saying it's not there, I just don't see it.
Quote:
And the Bush administration gives out decks of cards and puts the criminals back in power instead of trying them.
Who in the deck has been put back in power. And for moral equivalency's sake, what mass-murderer? Qusai or whatever got his ass worked.
Quote:
What corruption and skimming existed in the oil-for-food program did not stem from the UN.
Your assertion that the UN didn't know (or allowed) about Saddam skimming billions from the program is a harsher indictment against UN involvement than I have provided so far.
Quote:
Perhaps if Claudia Rosett were capable of performing basic research for her articles she could have discovered these answers for herself?
Weren't you just trying to disprove US-transparency by asking how much of what we know came from investigative journalism? Hmm.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
How about some more information for some balance? You know both sides of story? Or are you ready to admit you are ignorant and don't have full information?
The courts heard the case and found him guilty. That means he's guilty.
Keeping criminal scumbag cronies of the Bush administration - people like, say, Ahmad Chalabi - from having any involvement would be a nice start.
Is that all?
And do you not think the UN would be bringing in criminal scumbags of their own?
I think you may have misread that article. The accounts in which the proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil were held had balances of $12 billion. The UN administrative costs at the time that article was written were $1 billion.
It also collects a 2.2 percent commission on every barrel - more than $1 billion to date - that is supposed to cover its administrative costs. According to staff members, the program's bank accounts over the past year have held balances upward of $12 billion.
So the UN takes $1 billion for administrative costs and $12 billion for... what?
Well you can't find out because the process was not open. Nothing "transparent" about it.
The Galloway papers were forgeries.
No, they weren't. The Christian Science Monitor's papers were forgeries.
From your own article:
The Daily Telegraph turned down the documents used by the Monitor. The paper did publish its own allegations about Mr Galloway several days earlier, based on files retrieved from Baghdad's bombed-out foreign ministry by staff reporter David Blair.
The Daily Telegraph's papers are not forgeries.
I don't know why you think anyone is trying to ignore the effect of the sanctions...nor why you imagine that the UN is going to impose them again.
When did I say that the UN would impose them again? Why should we think that the UN could handle this situation when they have shown time and time again everything they do in Iraq has led to millions dying?
I'd still like to see some specifics on what the UN would improve over the US alone.
Originally posted by Scott
How about some more information for some balance? You know both sides of story? Or are you ready to admit you are ignorant and don't have full information?
Do you know another side to the story? Lets hear it then. Everything I have heard indicates that Chalabi is a convicted felon whose acts of fraud and embezzlement destroyed a number of people's lives.
Originally posted by groverat
And do you not think the UN would be bringing in criminal scumbags of their own?
No, I don't.
So the UN takes $1 billion for administrative costs and $12 billion for... what?
To pay for food and aid to send to Iraq.
The Daily Telegraph's papers are not forgeries.
I wasn't aware that the Telegraph's allegations were based on a different set of documents, but I'm not going to take the allegations as fact until I know more about the situation. Galloway launched libel proceedings shortly after the editorial you linked to was published, so the burden of proof (proof that Galloway took the money, not that the documents are genuine) is now on the Telegraph. I expect we'll hear more about this case as it unfolds.
Why should we think that the UN could handle this situation when they have shown time and time again everything they do in Iraq has led to millions dying?
Because the sanctions were applied to a completely different situation and because the UN has successfully managed regime transitions similar to the one currently required in Iraq.
Originally posted by Scott
"criminal scumbag"? Hummmm? What do you base that on? Please give full details. Both sides of the story. Try not to be bias and ignorant.
Oh, and don't forget that all of his 'defectors' turned out to be completely FOS. Not even Bush FOS. They were Coulter-level FOS, unicorns and giant rock people FOS.
No, I don't.
So in this instance the UN will act with pure good will and no one in the massive bureaucracy will skim money and corrupt the system?
You seem to have a religious faith in the UN that defies history and fact. Difficult to argue with.
To pay for food and aid to send to Iraq.
Read the article, dear, the paragraph above.
Since its inception, the program has overseen more than $100 billion in contracts for oil exports and relief imports combined.
$100 billion for "food and aid"
$1 billion for "administrative costs" (Does this not seem a tad outlandish?)
$12 billion for.... ?
I wasn't aware that the Telegraph's allegations were based on a different set of documents, but I'm not going to take the allegations as fact until I know more about the situation.
The reporter found them in Iraq, a source who knows the Iraqi official verified it was his handwriting. The handwriting on some of the letters are Galloway's.
Galloway launched libel proceedings shortly after the editorial you linked to was published, so the burden of proof (proof that Galloway took the money, not that the documents are genuine) is now on the Telegraph. I expect we'll hear more about this case as it unfolds.
It took him 2 months to file the libel suit.
And not one single shred of doubt has been brought out against the Telegraph. Not one. The Christian Science Monitor's accusations were debunked very quickly, yet 6 months later absolutely nothing actually questioning the documents the Telegraph found.
It's nice to see you put religious faith in a system that has killed millions but distrust a spotless journalistic report when it flies against your religious belief.
Because the sanctions were applied to a completely different situation and because the UN has successfully managed regime transitions similar to the one currently required in Iraq.
Similar to the one required in Iraq?? Where!?
Originally posted by groverat
So in this instance the UN will act with pure good will and no one in the massive bureaucracy will skim money and corrupt the system?
You seem to have a religious faith in the UN that defies history and fact. Difficult to argue with.
Not a religious faith, just a greater degree of faith that it will conduct its affairs with transparency and efficiency than I have in the Bush administration.
Read the article, dear, the paragraph above.
Dear? Does this mean I can call you sweetie?
$100 billion for "food and aid"
$1 billion for "administrative costs" (Does this not seem a tad outlandish?)
$12 billion for.... ?
I'll grant that that IHT article is not as clear as it could be, but you really do seem to be misreading it.
By way of background...
- The oil-for-food program started at the end of 1996
- Under the terms of the program, Iraq could sell $1 billion of oil every 90 days
- The proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil went into escrow accounts managed by the UN
- The money in these accounts was then used for food and aid (and reparations to Kuwait and skimming by Saddam and UN administrative costs)
- Total revenues from December 1996 to December 2002 were approximately $60.8 billion
- Total revenues for 2002 were approximately $11 billion
The $100 billion in the IHT article refers to the total value of oil export contracts and relief import contracts combined since December 1996. The $12 billion refers to highest balance held in the escrow accounts managed by the UN over the year prior to the IHT article. The only real criticism that can be applied to that $12 billion is that it was not spent on food and aid more quickly.Were the $1 billion administrative costs outlandish? I don't know. How much should the administration have cost?
The reporter found them in Iraq, a source who knows the Iraqi official verified it was his handwriting. The handwriting on some of the letters are Galloway's.
It took him 2 months to file the libel suit.
And not one single shred of doubt has been brought out against the Telegraph. Not one. The Christian Science Monitor's accusations were debunked very quickly, yet 6 months later absolutely nothing actually questioning the documents the Telegraph found.
Let's see what comes out during the libel case, shall we? If the Telegraph is able to prove its allegations it will. I still don't know enough about the situation to accept them as indisputable fact. Neither, I suspect, do you.
To be honest, it wouldn't particularly surprise me if Galloway had in fact dealt with Iraqi intelligence under Saddam. His apparent support for Saddam's regime over the years certainly doesn't portray him in a very favorable light...but again, it is currently his word against the Telegraph's that he took money so we'll have to see what the result of the libel case is.
I don't see what relevance this has to the discussion we are having on the UN anyway. Galloway is (or was, before his suspension) a member of the British government who has frequently been critical of both the UN and the US in their dealings with Iraq.
Similar to the one required in Iraq?? Where!?
Cambodia, Namibia, El Salvador...didn't we cover this already?
Not a religious faith, just a greater degree of faith that it will conduct its affairs with transparency and efficiency than I have in the Bush administration.
The oil-for-food program was less transparent than the current Iraq rebuilding effort. What makes you believe the UN process will be "transparent"? Do you have any historical precedent to back it?
This transparency thing you keep bringing up is a blatant lie. There is no truth to it at all. click (same article as IHT but in original context at NYTimes)
It is impossible to find out for certain. The quantities of goods involved in shipments are confidential, and almost all descriptions on the contract lists made public by the United Nations are so generic as to be meaningless. For example, a deal with Russia approved last Nov. 19 was described on the contract papers with the enigmatic notation: "goods for resumption of project." Who are the Russian suppliers? The United Nations won't say. What were they promised in payment? That's secret.
As far as efficiency, I'll point to Yugoslavia. Efficiency is almost as big a joke as transparency. So efficient was the UN that millions of Iraqis were killed by sanctions! Like a Swiss watch!
Dear? Does this mean I can call you sweetie?
Ms. Jackson if you're nasty.
The only real criticism that can be applied to that $12 billion is that it was not spent on food and aid more quickly.
Or at all.
Tell me, kneelbeforezod, why was it that France and Co. took so long to eliminate the oil-for-food program and the sanctions after Saddam was ousted?
Profiteering on the blood of the Iraqi civilians? SURELY NOT!
Were the $1 billion administrative costs outlandish? I don't know. How much should the administration have cost?
His apparent support for Saddam's regime over the years certainly doesn't portray him in a very favorable light...but again, it is currently his word against the Telegraph's that he took money so we'll have to see what the result of the libel case is.
Well, the Telegraph has actual documentation that appeared genuine to the same man who dismissed the Christian Science Monitor's documents as fake.
We don't know *everything*, but we know quite a bit. I don't see such a careful attitude from you concerning what you perceive to be a US failure in Iraq, and you know even less about that than you do the Galloway scam.
I don't see what relevance this has to the discussion we are having on the UN anyway.
Because it all took place under the polar-opposite-of-transparent umbrella of the UN.
Cambodia, Namibia, El Salvador...didn't we cover this already?
These examples hardly compare to Iraq.
Dubya made his speech to the UN Assembly.
The most notable thing about the speech was not its content, but the silence it was greeted with.
Dubya's rehtorical question "Are you with us, or against us?" seems to be answered.
Originally posted by Ms Jackson
The oil-for-food program was less transparent than the current Iraq rebuilding effort.
Where has there been any transparency in the current, US managed, Iraq rebuilding effort? Can you provide financial information pertaining to the Development Fund for Iraq (created by the UN to replace the il-for-food program at the behest of the US and under the control of the Coalition Provisional Authority)? Did the UN provide absolute legal protection for French, Russian or Syrian interests in Iraqi oil in the manner that the Bush administration has provided for the US corporations that currently have exclusive access to Iraqi oil contracts?
As far as efficiency, I'll point to Yugoslavia. Efficiency is almost as big a joke as transparency.
You point to failure in Yugoslavia, I point to success elsewhere. Where the UN has been involved in assisting the transition to democratically elected governments it has been successful. Where failures have occurred it was due in part to the fact that large scale conflicts were still in progress?which is not the case in Iraq. How does the track record of the US - or any other single nation - match up?
Or at all.
Are you saying that the $12 billion never made it into Iraq? Can you verify this?
I don't see such a careful attitude from you concerning what you perceive to be a US failure in Iraq, and you know even less about that than you do the Galloway scam.
I knew nothing about the aspects of the Galloway allegations discussed in the last few posts prior to today, but I?ve read enough about the current situation in Iraq to know that it is far from being the success you appear to think it is.
Because it all took place under the polar-opposite-of-transparent umbrella of the UN.
Galloway didn?t work for or with the UN.
Where has there been any transparency in the current, US managed, Iraq rebuilding effort?
Well, the fact that we're discussing Bechtel getting $X and Halliburton getting $X should be the first indication that we know a bit about what's going on. So there's some. Then we know how many Iraqis are being hired (enough to say it's insufficient); so there's some more.
Can you provide financial information pertaining to the Development Fund for Iraq (created by the UN to replace the il-for-food program at the behest of the US and under the control of the Coalition Provisional Authority)? Did the UN provide absolute legal protection for French, Russian or Syrian interests in Iraqi oil in the manner that the Bush administration has provided for the US corporations that currently have exclusive access to Iraqi oil contracts?
Dunno, you can do the google hunting to make your own point. I eagerly await your audit.
Where the UN has been involved in assisting the transition to democratically elected governments it has been successful. Where failures have occurred it was due in part to the fact that large scale conflicts were still in progress?which is not the case in Iraq.
Yep, no large-scale conflicts in Iraq. Just 200k+ American soldiers who are attacked every day from all angles. And the UN headquarters being bombed repeatedly.
Are you saying that the $12 billion never made it into Iraq? Can you verify this?
None of it can be varified, that's the problem. The process was closed and secretive.
I knew nothing about the aspects of the Galloway allegations discussed in the last few posts prior to today, but I?ve read enough about the current situation in Iraq to know that it is far from being the success you appear to think it is.
You can't address my argument so you create a straw-man to beat up? Nice.
What level of success do I think we are having in Iraq? All this thinking and speaking for myself is a bit tiring, perhaps you could just go ahead and tell me what I think so I don't have to do the work.
Galloway didn?t work for or with the UN.
1) Never said he did.
2) Saddam didn't work for the UN either, and he made a tidy bundle. So working for the UN is hardly a requisite for profiting from their secrecy, incompetence and corrupt nature.
Well, the fact that we're discussing Bechtel getting $X and Halliburton getting $X should be the first indication that we know a bit about what's going on. So there's some. Then we know how many Iraqis are being hired (enough to say it's insufficient); so there's some more.
And how do we know what little we do know? Through openness by the Bush administration or investagative journalism and leaked information?
Yep, no large-scale conflicts in Iraq. Just 200k+ American soldiers who are attacked every day from all angles. And the UN headquarters being bombed repeatedly.
Compared to civil war this is hardly a large-scale conflict. Sounds more like a police action...and we all know how well the US has managed police actions in the past.
Dunno, you can do the google hunting to make your own point. I eagerly await your audit.
I've supported my points throughout this discussion - so far all you've been able to come up with were articles on the oil-for-food programs that you completely misinterpreted (and that it took me three posts to explain to you properly) and completely irrelevant allegations about George Galloway.
And how do we know what little we do know? Through openness by the Bush administration or investagative journalism and leaked information?
You tell me.
click
click (You can get an Excel file of sub-contracts there, even)
Compared to civil war this is hardly a large-scale conflict. Sounds more like a police action...and we all know how well the US has managed police actions in the past.
And we also know how well the UN handles conflicts, they stand idly by and watch while they happen, waiting until all the blood has been shed to come in and give each other medals and hold grandstanding trials.
I've supported my points throughout this discussion - so far all you've been able to come up with were articles on the oil-for-food programs that you completely misinterpreted (and that it took me three posts to explain to you properly) and completely irrelevant allegations about George Galloway.
I misread the articles about how the Oil-For-Food program was secretive and open to corruption? Hmm. I guess that paragraph I just posted doesn't exist?
Let me try again... Who are the Russian suppliers? The United Nations won't say. What were they promised in payment? That's secret.
Originally posted by groverat
You tell me.
click
click (You can get an Excel file of sub-contracts there, even)
That the current contractors are listing their sub-contractors is good...but neither USAID nor the CPA directly provide greater levels of information on the current programs than the UN did on the oil-for-food program. The various UN agencies filled an analogous role under the oil-for-food program to the one corporations like Bechtel are filling under the current programs. If you look to the appropriate agencies you'll find plenty of information on suppliers and contractors.
And we also know how well the UN handles conflicts, they stand idly by and watch while they happen, waiting until all the blood has been shed to come in and give each other medals and hold grandstanding trials.
And the Bush administration gives out decks of cards and puts the criminals back in power instead of trying them.
I misread the articles about how the Oil-For-Food program was secretive and open to corruption?
You wrote that "The UN collected $12 billion in 'administrative costs.'" The UN in fact collected $1 billion in administrative costs. So either you misunderstood the article or you attempted to distort the content to better suit your argument. What corruption and skimming existed in the oil-for-food program did not stem from the UN.
Who are the Russian suppliers? The United Nations won't say.
The Russian supplier that the IHT article was so concerned with is Technopromexport, a company that had built power plants in Iraq in the late 1980s and started working on oil-for-food projects in 1999 (see Rehabilitation of Dokan Hydro Power Plant). The project that was being resumed was the construction of Youssifiyah power plant, which Technopromexport had been working on at the outbreak of the Gulf War. Details of the goods in question are available here (scroll to page 26).
Perhaps if Claudia Rosett were capable of performing basic research for her articles she could have discovered these answers for herself?
What were they promised in payment? That's secret.
How is it secret? They received money generated by the sale of Iraqi oil.
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you...I actually had to do work today...
I hate when that happens.
The various UN agencies filled an analogous role under the oil-for-food program to the one corporations like Bechtel are filling under the current programs. If you look to the appropriate agencies you'll find plenty of information on suppliers and contractors.
I don't see it. I'm not saying it's not there, I just don't see it.
And the Bush administration gives out decks of cards and puts the criminals back in power instead of trying them.
Who in the deck has been put back in power. And for moral equivalency's sake, what mass-murderer? Qusai or whatever got his ass worked.
What corruption and skimming existed in the oil-for-food program did not stem from the UN.
Your assertion that the UN didn't know (or allowed) about Saddam skimming billions from the program is a harsher indictment against UN involvement than I have provided so far.
Perhaps if Claudia Rosett were capable of performing basic research for her articles she could have discovered these answers for herself?
Weren't you just trying to disprove US-transparency by asking how much of what we know came from investigative journalism? Hmm.