For those who love to get outraged about Bush and his supposed crony connections, Halliburton and Cheney and who mistakenly blame Worldcom, Enron, Arthur Andersen on the Bush administration despite the fact that all of this wrongdoing occurred during the Clinton administration…
Get set for some really big money that dwarfs all of the supposed iniquity in the American system. It’s at the United Nations and involves ALL of our favorite actors especially France. Read on and let’s hear the outrage.
With United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan finally conceding the need for an independent investigation of the U.N.'s 1996-2003 Oil-for-Food program in Iraq, the next question is how investigators might begin to get a grip on the U.N.'s central role in this huge scandal.
Naturally, the rampant signs of corruption are important, and leads on graft involving U.N. personnel
Well, with pre-war U.N. corruption and post-war U.S. corruption (Halliburton etc). it would seem that there is indeed common ground and a similarity in methodology for the U.S. and U.N. to work together in rebuilding Iraq for the benefit of the U.S. and the U.N.
I maintain however that it should all be left to the Brits who are better at running other countries than anyone else.
It is ALLEGED that Bush’s supposed cronies, well Cheney’s really at Halliburton have overcharged the US Army by US$18 million now that is a similar amount for the UN Oil for Food program only if you forget the last 1,000. Try US$18 billion on for size. But naturally, all of this corruption elicits little to no outrage from the Usual Concerned Parties so I must assume that if Bush and Cheney are going to in fact steal, they should steal big, get the UN and French involved and nary a word of protest will be uttered.
How positively kind-hearted and benevolent of you, but I want to see you inspired to rabidly foam at the mouth, critiquing each and every statement that Kofi Annan makes, looking into international “law” to see how this should be prosecuted. I want you to make it as much your life’s interest as the Iraq invasion was. I want day to day updates on the outrage of the UNITED NATIONS thieving and flouting international sensibilities and LAW. Each and every day if you don’t mind. Each and every day.
Where is the outrage? You want to talk about innocent women and children dying (perhaps 3,000 because of US bombs, perhaps hundreds of thousands under the oil for food program!!!)
Never has there been a financial rip-off of the magnitude of the UN oil-for-food scandal. At least $5 billion in kickbacks went from corrupt contractors - mainly French and Russian - into the pockets of Saddam Hussein and his thugs. Some went to pay off his protectors in foreign governments and media, and we may soon see how much stuck to the fingers of UN bureaucrats as well.
.
Responding to a harangue in this space on March 17, the spokesman for Kofi Annan confirmed that the secretary general’s soft-spoken son, Kojo, was on the payroll of Cotecna Inspections of Switzerland until December 1998. In that very month, the United Nations awarded Cotecna the contract to monitor and authenticate the goods shipped to Iraq..
Prices were inflated to allow for 10 percent kickbacks, and the goods were often shoddy and unusable. As the lax Cotecna made a lot of corporate friends, Iraqi children suffered from rotted food and diluted medicines..
[b]Nothing doing, said France’s UN ambassador, Jean-Marc de la Sabli
How positively kind-hearted and benevolent of you, but I want to see you inspired to rabidly foam at the mouth, critiquing each and every statement that Kofi Annan makes, looking into international “law” to see how this should be prosecuted. I want you to make it as much your life’s interest as the Iraq invasion was. I want day to day updates on the outrage of the UNITED NATIONS thieving and flouting international sensibilities and LAW. Each and every day if you don’t mind. Each and every day.
Love Fred[/quote]
Don’t hold your breath waiting for any such outrage, Fred. And I’m not directing this only at Rascal.
Those who have complained about the US companies (such as Halliburton) will not make a peep about the corruption at the UN.
Funny though, those folks wanted to rely on the UN as the final authority for the execution of “international law”. That would be hilarious if it were not so utterly pathetic.
Seriously now. Surely the very organization that was supposed to uphold “international law” nay was screaming to the very rafters of heaven about international law must surely surely? submit itself to those very rules to determine the extent of mismanagement and corruption in the Oil for Food program? AND is it not most amusing to watch Kofi Annan whose son is involved (where are the Bush and oil conspiracists now?) the French (who are defending Saddam with legal counsel!) and the Russians try to keep this from being submitted to precisely those international institutions that they were so keen to see empowered merely a year ago?
Where is the outrage? AND remember that the quality of food and medicine under this program meant that thousands perhaps hundreds of thousands died or were malnourished, but we have to hear about thousands (3,000 to 7,000) Iraqi civilians who were killed because of American bombing? in a war?!!!
Also, figure out if US$5 billion is the minimum and given that the rest went into Saddam’s pockets, how much money could have gone to feeding and treating the wailing women and shrieking children of Iraq and thus those very wailers and shriekers would be alive today? Where is the outrage?
US$18 million ALLEGED overcharging by Halliburton in which no one died is being treated as a new Nuremburg. US$5 billion or MORE is being treated with silence? What the hell?! This is why the Left is treated with such contempt? Or where is thy moral compass Lefties? Where is your heart on your sleeve now?! Why is it in your pocket? Mindless, mental defectives!
Let me directly challenge you in the same way that you have challenged us. We said we knew where the wmds were and we were unable to prove that.
You have stated that international law must be followed and have gone to great lengths to advocate international law as embodied in organizations such as the UN. I fully expect that we will be hearing from you loudly and frequently about how this travesty of justice should be addressed. Surely?
This is the beginning of a process of my considering agreeing with you; don’t ruin it by insinuating that I am a ‘mindless defective’…I think my views on Penguinism show that there is nothing defective in my mind whatsoever. Loathe though I am to admit this, I may be on the verge of agreeing.
Oh Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo…but I just might.
Maybe I am obtuse again but I don’t see the connection. Supporting the UN and criticising US companies for corruption are two different things and neither means that those people automatically support or accept the corruption at the UN.
Personally I had earlier agreed that the UN may need an overhaul; and corruption is a bad thing, no matter if it’s an American company, a German company, the UN or anyone/-where else.
Not hilarous, but I find your conclusions quite entertaining in a confusing way.
On a more personal note I see this as part of your “all critics (against the US, government and companies etc.) are Anti-American” argument: if (and only if) the above would be true you may have a point but then you have nothing to back it up with. After all, by now you should know that the lack of proof does not mean ‘something is there’.
But by making such comments you may have spoiled any chance of a sensible reply by those that support the UN but do not accept corruption.
Just my opinion of course and I have understood that it was not only addressed at me.
Sorry fred, but I won’t argue with international law since it would just turn into another “there is no international law” debate. But if you and the others clearly and unconditionally state that there is an international law I may reconsider.
As to frequently: it would probably depend on my mood, time available and as to how important the issue is to me, not all things rank the same (in particular not those that do not directly result in the death of innocents).
On a more serious note: is it the UN itself or are we talking about some individual who tries to enrich him/herself? Now that would make a difference, wouldn’t it … !?
If not then surely we could find example of individuals in the USG that have taken money, so where is your loud and frequent outrage and protest against this / the USG?
The connection… the title of this thread. If as you state, “Supporting the UN and criticising US companies for corruption are two different things and neither means that those people automatically support or accept the corruption at the UN”, then where is your moral outrage at the UN?
What is so funny about my statement above? I would indeed regard your trust in the UN’s capacity or willingness to uphold and or enforce “international law” if the same were not such a pathetically sorry notion. What is confusing about that?
Huh? Assuming I am making an anti-American argument, what about my statements above is NOT true?
What? I thought you were a crusader for all that is right, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Will your moral conscience be silenced by your own imagination?
You were the one that was so concerned about international law. You were the one that claimed the US action was illegal in Iraq because of international law and that you were not anti-American but only concerned about international law and you were the one that wanted the UN to have the ability to decide. Now, what are you going to do with this precious UN now that it in fact is flouting the very international laws that you claim should be upheld? WE never said we believed in international law, therefore it is not up to us to defend or accept it.
Where you can criticize us is on wmds. We said there were wmds and we cannot come up with the evidence. I don’t care because I think many other factors were involved and we do KNOW now that he never will develop them.
But here is a good case in point about dealing with Lefties. What is your moral yardstick and when do you apply it? Shrieking that we are trying to label you anti-American will not get you out of this. Prove or rather proof that you have an objective standard and that you apply it equally, ah but no doubt this is something that only you can decide and we are not qualified to determine or call you to task when you fail in your moral postures. However, we can find you ludicrously inconsistent.
There it is / was - I quote myself: “I am outraged, I truly am.” Proven wrong again. :raspberry:
Right, as if the UN just exists for the purpose of corruption only. I argued earlier that if a case of corruption renders an entire organization useless, then please apply the same standards to your government (current and former).
Looking at a later argument that’s the kind of consistency you are asking for, isn’t it?
As I tried to explain, and I highlight that I was speculating, your argument was not backed up by any substance / facts / evidence. Hence my use of the words “if” and “would”, questioning the issue without saying it is true or not true.
Until you provide such substance / facts / evidence I cannot say (prove) it was true or not true - but neither can you.
What: your comment implied that any supporter of the UN also supports the corruption, something which would suit your ‘Anti-American’ argument well.
As such the comment can be perceived as outrageous and insulting, something which I personally don’t see as a good base for discussion.
So one shouldn’t be surprised if you do not receive any sensible response (or any response at all). Of course you may consider this as further evidence for your “A-A” line of argumentation, but even no one replies it does NOT prove you right, it can just mean people have choosen to remain silent and ignore your provocation.
As to the second part: even I would be a “crusader for all that is right” as you call it it doesn’t mean I will respond to each and everything said, in particular I am trying now to refrain from responding to provocations, insults, ridiculous interpretations (nothing personal though sometimes you qualify ) and imputations (right word?).
Though perhaps me not responding on occassion could also prove you wrong and I am not what you want me to be.
First I wish to object against the accusation of being Anti-American, I think my criticism of the war and the Bush administration does not qualify as such.
If you insist than I can only conclude that you do not accept other views and as such you are not democratic; labelling others with this and similar is easily done, but when it’s only done for the purpose of mockery or discrediting others it becomes a really lame and insulting (if repeated) “argument”. And you may consider that exactly these kind of things could develop into or promote Anti-Americanism.
And before I answer your question show me where international law covers internal corruption inside the UN!?
No, I am not saying it’s good or we should ignore it, but IMHO the whole thing has nothing to do with the US violating i.l. in Iraq, it should be addressed (invesigated) and have consequences for those involved, but (and that may sound familiar) it does not explain or excuse anyone violating i.l.
Again you connect two things which do not relate except they are both “bad” and now that I clearly said I do not support the corruption in the UN and I demand it to be thoroughly investigated your entire argumentation becomes baseless.
No, I criticise you for going to war based on weak/faulty evidence (incl. non-existant WMD and a perceived/constructed threat-argument based on those) and a invading souvereign country, thus violating international law and killing hundreds if not thousands of innocent civilians.
Ludicrous is to use the quantity of responses to measure if someone is Anti-American or not.
And like I just tried to explain to Tigerman, provoking people by making such imputations just makes me want to ignore the “argument” and as such I am more inclined to refrain from responding.
Giving you what you want (i.e. no response) might make you think you are right but if that’s all you have as “proof” then I pity the both of you.
But surely we can and have noticed that you were an exhaustive critic of the “intelligence” used to invade Iraq. Yet, you have merely a few comments to make about this case which dwarfs anything that Halliburton may or may not have pulled in overcharging the US government.
Your outrage is muted to say the least and therefore we must assume somewhat selective.
Given that not hundreds or thousands but hundreds of thousands died because of the rotten food and bad medicine distributed to Iraqi women and children because of the corruption in this program may we assume that your outrage will be based on a factor of 100 times greater now? I mean comparing say 5,000 Iraqi civilian deaths with say 50,000 or even 150,000? surely the latter would generate a storm of protest from our moral and concerned Rascal? Surely? No? Why not?
It is insufficient for you to now pick and choose how and when you will argue these issues by claiming personal prerogative. You can certainly do so but I can also lose a lot of respect for what appears to me a very highly conveniently selective position based perhaps on cowardice if you choose to do so.
