POLITICS: U.N. Oil For Food Scandal Grows. Possibly the Largest in Human History.

Leveller, the reasons France and Russia were against the invasion were more about:
a) not actually thinking that an invasion was a good idea
b) wanting to make the point that the US can't just do what it wants and expect blanket support
c) preferring to try and trade with an independent country rather than a US satellite where there will no longer be a level playing field

However, c) isn't the only reason, because if it was then Fr/Ru would have joined in on the invasion to get their slice of the pie.

Anyway, back to the main point, the smuggling that everyone's suddenly so shocked by was known to be occuring at the time. The big question is whether or not the UN were involved. The UN says it wasn't but has ordered an independent inquiry to investigate the allegations. The US congress is also carrying out it's own investigation.

However, I personally think that this is just a right wing smear to undermine the UN at a time when it could get more heavily involved in restructuring Iraq. Unfortunately, more UN involvement means less US control, which scares people like Rumsfield and co.

Originally posted by dom
Leveller, the reasons France and Russia were against the invasion were more about:
a) not actually thinking that an invasion was a good idea
b) wanting to make the point that the US can't just do what it wants and expect blanket support
c) preferring to try and trade with an independent country rather than a US satellite where there will no longer be a level playing field

When you look at a,b and c, they all equate to one thing - MONEY.

France and Russia didn't worry about getting a slice of the pie. Why? They were already feeding off it.
They would have lost money supporting the invasion and why work for your cash when you're already getting it for nothing by screwing the system?

That argument is flawed though, because while they would lose money from an invasion, they'd lose even more money from not supporting the invasion.

[EDIT]And everyone knew the US was going to attack regardless, so they can't really have believed that their opposition would stop the US attack[/EDIT]

[Edited on 30-4-2004 by dom]

It's not flawed. Supporting the invasion they risk a sure thing. By not supporting it they can hope that the coalition screws up and then cream money off another way.
There will be a whole wealth of deals that Russia and France can make if the coalition fails in Iraq.

psteel, can you not follow the bounci8ng ball or is your hatred for the U.S. too great for you to see anything. The whole point is not only is the U.N. corrupt (Obviously as it is comprised of corrupt governments) but those who were adamant against the U.S. actually ridding the world of a brutal tyrant that was up to his ears in terror were against us because they were making dirty money from the tyrant. There was nothing honorable about their not siding with us.

With growing evidence that Bush was in fact right about the NBC weapons in Iraq, why is it that so many people are still unable to see past their false beliefs that the U.S. is the ultimate evil and all else is divinely good?

I just don't think that's a strong enough reason for them not to support the war.

My feeling is that the primary reason for Russia was showing that it's not going to be pushed around by the US, the primary reason for France is that there would have been too much public opposition to war, plus showing a bit of backbone.

The financial aspects of this aren't significant enough to have been the major reason.

TC - you made the brutal tyrant in the first place! And there's plenty of other brutal tyrants that don't get removed by the US, in fact, plenty of them recieve training and military aid from the US. So why is it surprising that people don't think that the US motivation for attacking Iraq was in any way humanitarian?!?

Originally posted by dom

The financial aspects of this aren't significant enough to have been the major reason.

Look at it this way. There is a whole world out there where the US isn't flavour of the month. Ignore Iraq for a second and fix on the long term.
Favoured trading nation status is going to go to the guy who you're closer to terms with. The whole of Asia and most of Africa is going to look upon France and Russia as allied to their way of thinking. Economic ties spring up from this sort of thing - it's the way trade has always worked. How do you think France got such a good foothold in Iraq in the first place?

Financially, if the coalition succeeds, Russia and France stand to lose revenue for a while from Iraq. But there's a whole world that will open up to them and whose to say that a new Iraqi administration won't welcome them back in after their country has stabilised.
If the coalition fails, France and Russia still get their slice of the pie from Iraq and they still get the deals with the rest of the World because of their opposition.

They're in a win win situation. The finanacial gains that they can make dwarf anything they would have gained by supporting the US. All they would have got would have been a little larger slice of the pie that they were feeding on already. By opposing, they opened up the possibility of actually owning their own bakery.

Interesting argument. But I still think France and Russia were not looking this far ahead. Russia, perhaps, would be interested in watching the US stick it's head in a noose and jump off the edge of a building. However France has a long history of supporting US military action, and I think that they would have supported this too if they thought the attack was justified. I just don't believe that France was motivated by trying to make the US look bad. There are so many other reasons not to have gone to war...

Originally posted by dom
Interesting argument. But I still think France and Russia were not looking this far ahead.

Don't you believe it. The US was certainly looking well into the future with it's invasion. The whole idea was to give a new shape to the Middle East. Russia and France are no different from other countries. Governments shape policies that will come into fruition many years ahead. To suggest that France or Russia jumped into a decision without considering the long term ramifications doesn't give them credit. Remember that you are dealing with two countries which both had empires and both understand world politics and cultural economics probably even better than the US does.


The Franco/Russian stance wasn't something that came about because of a moral viewpoint. It came about because those countries believe that they have something to gain financially long term by opposing US Middle East policy. Neither France or Russia has ever had a particularily strong moral background - it's suprising that all of a sudden they are now seen as defenders of justice.

Both France and Russia have strong reasons for opposing US policy. France is trying to centre itself in the evergrowing EU and has never given up it's yearnings for it's past position as a world superpower and Russia is trying to find it's economic feet and draw closer to it's major trading partner. By opposing US policy, both nations have strengthened their hands. As I said before - by opposing they are both in a win win situation.

I doubt we're ever going to reach agreement on this one.

To me, it seems perfectly possible that Fr/Ru decided that this war would just stir up a hornets nest and they wanted nothing to do with it. It would also have lowered their standing in the region as you point out. I don't think this means that they're being evil conniving money-orientated imperialists. Perhaps they just have some semblance of common sense.

I do respect your argument though, and where you're coming from, I just disagree.

Anyone can set themselves up as a moral authority. Just look at who was selected to chair the Human Rights Commission last year - Libya!

It was Africa's turn to be in charge of the commission and their leaders (who were either involved in a group hallucinogenic party or simply have been unable to read for their entire lives) chose Libya to be the chair.

Amazingly these same leaders who choose a nation who (excluding recent fear based initiatives) craps on world opinion and human rights, consistently have the gall to criticize the US and were against the war in Iraq.

This is the fact: The majority of world leaders are afraid to let their citizens acquire freedom. The majority of world leaders support having mentally unbalanced people playing world chess with each other with human lives as their pieces. The majority of world leaders support the highway robbery of the poor and helpless as long as the money is going to them. The majority of world leaders will do NOTHING about this oil for food scandal and instead are probably already focused on other ways to pad their own pockets at the expense of others.

It's easy to rob the world blind when you criticize ever action performed by everyone else because you are distracting the idiot public. The UN had votes, and proclamations, and resolutions, and meetings all to show their opposition to the US going into Iraq. They set themselves up as the ultra-moral saviors of humankind. At the very same time they were sneaking billions of dollars out of that very country for their own benefit.

As far as I'm concerned, all of their moral grandstanding was just a desperate try to keep their money pumping status quo safe.

To the people standing with signs saying "The war in Iraq is all about oil" - you got that right - the war in Iraq toppled the racketeering scandal that your friends had going on. Oops.

[Edited on 4-30-2004 by Djarums]

Originally posted by dom
That argument is flawed though, because while they would lose money from an invasion, they'd lose even more money from not supporting the invasion.

[EDIT]And everyone knew the US was going to attack regardless, so they can't really have believed that their opposition would stop the US attack[/EDIT]

[Edited on 30-4-2004 by dom]

Care to explain or spin this dom?

At a lunch in the White House on January 13 last year, Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, an adviser to the president, Jacques Chirac, and Jean-David Levitte, the French ambassador in Washington, put the deal to Condoleezza Rice, the US national security adviser.

In an effort to avoid a bitter US-French row, the French officials suggested that if the US was intent on war, it should not seek the second resolution....

Instead, the two said that the first resolution on Iraq, 1441, passed the previous year, provided enough legal cover for war and that France would keep quiet if the US went to war on that basis.

The deal would suit the French by maintaining its "good cop" status in the Arab world and safeguarding Franco-US relations.

France 'sought secret UN deal' in bid to avert row

Maybe this?
The French War For Oil, Along With Others.



seekerof

I'll point out the spin.

The spin is that every news service around the world is covering the Torture and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners as the biggest story in the world today and the US is UN bashing.That's the spin.

Yes, I'll care to spin that for you seekerof. France didn't want a head on conflict with the US about the war, and wanted a quiet life. Instead the US went for the second UN resolution, mostly so that they could keep Blair on side, and alienated their French allies by forcing them to publicly oppose the war.

The french didn't want this war, any leadership with a shred of common sense wouldn't have wanted this war, because it was bound to inflame Arab public opinion.

The quote you give isn't about money, it's about politics.

John, my reply to you is the same as my reply to the people who respond to Kerry's medal issues with further complaints about Bush. A massive amount of criminal activity within the UN has been exposed. Yes, something went on in Iraq that was wrong. You're right about that. But that absolutely can not be used to downplay the importance of the billions of dollars embezzled by UN cronies from a "humanitarian" program. Both issues are bad, both should be dealt with but do not try to exonerate the UN people from all guilt of a LONG ongoing crime by diverting everyone's attention elsewhere. Admit there was blatant corruption and theft in the UN and that it should be dealt with just the same way you say this other problem should be dealt with.

I accept that there was corruption in the oil for food program.

There are also a number of investigations going on right now into similar corruption in this last year by the USA but I expect you haven't heard about that.

My point above is that this UN corruption story has been strung out now for about two weeks and here is a final burst so that Americans can feign self righteous indignation at a time when the world sees some of the most disgusting pictures ever which are bound to raise the obvious questions about what has actually changed in Iraq in just over a year.Certainly more people have died in Iraq this year as against last year and there is still apparently torture going on.

I don't see anybody defending the UN.What I do see is a lot of Neo-Cons bumping this story for two weeks now.

SO LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT AGENDAS !

Originally posted by John bull 1
I'll point out the spin.

The spin is that every news service around the world is covering the Torture and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners as the biggest story in the world today and the US is UN bashing.That's the spin.

Well, the difference here is that there are enough checks and balances in the American system for this abuse to come to light, and the individuals will be punished.

The U.N. would like to keep up reaping the billions in this program, and they would, but the U.S. and Britian put a stop to it. The U.N. had to rely on an external check to stop this corruption.

Corruption will always exist any any large body or corporation, so the main factor in detecting and stopping this corruption is the leadership. When Saddam was Iraq's leader abuse on a much larger scale went on uncheck in the prisions. He has been taken out and any corruption in the Iraqi prision system comes to light and is corrected. The U.N. needs the same thing that Iraq has experienced. Leadership Change!

as quoted by dom
The quote you give isn't about money, it's about politics.

Yes sir, you are correct, that quote I posted wasn't about money, but dom, the second link provided most certainly was! Did you, by chance, read the articles therein?
The French War For Oil, Along With Others.

Turn your 'selecto-vision' off for a moment, if you kindly will, and read how money was implied and the motive:

In documents I obtained during an investigation of the French relationship to Saddam Hussein, the French interest in maintaining Saddam Hussein in power was spelled out in excruciating detail. The price tag: close to $100 billion. That was what French oil companies stood to profit in the first seven years of their exclusive oil arrangements - had Saddam remained in power.

Those two deals, which I detail in "The French Betrayal of America," would have been worth an estimated $100 billion over a seven-year period - but were conditioned on the lifting of U.N. sanctions on Iraq. Simply put, analyst Gerald Hillman told me, the French were saying: "We will help you get the sanctions lifted, and when we do that, you give us this.

seekerof

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
psteel, can you not follow the bounci8ng ball or is your hatred for the U.S. too great for you to see anything.

If you replace the word 'hatred' with 'fear' of a powerful nuclear power country run by religious fanatics , that would be much closer to the truth. What on earth do you expect , when we hear GWB tell us that 'god told him to attack Iraq? HELLO WAKE UP!!!

The whole point is not only is the U.N. corrupt (Obviously as it is comprised of corrupt governments) but those who were adamant against the U.S. actually ridding the world of a brutal tyrant that was up to his ears in terror were against us because they were making dirty money from the tyrant. There was nothing honorable about their not siding with us.

Honor has nothing to do with war only between soldiers.People who invoke honor don't deal with the utter brutality of war. BTW that brutal dictator [Saddam] was amercias buddy in the 80s keeping back Islamic fundamentalism. And why was that ? cause the USA had lost its influence in Iran when the Attolas over threw the SHA. All this stupid idiotic war had done is to remove the wall and opened door for Iranian fundamentalist to take over the entire oil region, which it looks like its doing...Thanks for nothing!!!!

The only time Iraq has ever functioned as a country was under a repressive regime. The french, germans and Russians knew this as did most of the population of Europe.If these modern day warriors for god, had studied their history instead of there corrupted theological view of the bible, they would have known this.

With growing evidence that Bush was in fact right about the NBC weapons in Iraq, why is it that so many people are still unable to see past their false beliefs that the U.S. is the ultimate evil and all else is divinely good?

There is NO evidence of WMD, only neocon deception and propaganda. Whats evil is a religious leadership with some laterday missionary view of the world to spread American geopolitical power ,er I mean "freedom and democracy", in the region. ....How many decades have your country languished without this mideast influence [through the Sha of Iran]?

There is nothing EVER EVER moral about wars , which is why you don't go to war unless you absolutly have too. It represents the breakdown in politics and is in and of itself an admission of failure. The EUros knew this which is why they didn't participate in the farce.

Whats more when leaders invoke war under the guise of 'good and evil and god' we are looking at the ultimate abuse of power.No doubt the real aim of this war is to drag the west into some kind of apocaliptic struggle with Islam , from their basterdised view of the bible.