Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

We may not have found weapons of M.D but we are finding plenty of other things

Feb 28, 2004 9:49PM PST
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/29/international/middleeast/29FOOD.html?th

Hussein's Regime Skimmed Billions From Aid Program

BAGHDAD, Iraq ? In its final years in power, Saddam Hussein's government systematically extracted billions of dollars in kickbacks from companies doing business with Iraq, funneling most of the illicit funds through a network of foreign bank accounts in violation of United Nations sanctions.

Millions of Iraqis were struggling to survive on rations of food and medicine. Yet the government's hidden slush funds were being fed by suppliers and oil traders from around the world who sometimes lugged suitcases full of cash to ministry offices, said Iraqi officials who supervised the skimming operation.

The officials' accounts were enhanced by a trove of internal Iraqi government documents and financial records provided to The New York Times by members of the Iraqi Governing Council. Among the papers was secret correspondence from Mr. Hussein's top lieutenants setting up a formal mechanism to siphon cash from Iraq's business deals, an arrangement that went unnoticed by United Nations monitors.

Under a United Nations program begun in 1997, Iraq was permitted to sell its oil only to buy food and other relief goods. The kickback order went out from Mr. Hussein's inner circle three years later, when limits on the amount of oil sales were lifted and Iraq's oil revenues reached $10 billion a year.
The rest of the story is on the link
speakeasy speakeasygang

What I find most amazing, that there are people who are members of Speakeasy who speak out in support of that terrible evil man. Sad

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
I shall give you an example of why having the U.N with all it's faults isn't necessarily a good thing.
Feb 29, 2004 10:17AM PST

Just say I was a company director and I hired a catering oganisation to take care of my employees.
If the catering staff were useless and many of my employees went down with food poisoning, I would promptly fire the whole bunch, and seek a better catering Organisation.
Why should the U.N be allowed to fail in so many ways and not get their cards.
Admittedly it wouldn't be easy to find a replacement, certainly not without a lot of ground work, but an excuse for an organisation is worse than having no organisation at all.
Frankly I think direct negotiation with the leaders of all the countries would be a great deal more fruitful. Having a corrupt buffer zone (U.N) does nothing but allows people like Saddam to pull the wool over our eyes.
B.T.W laundering of money does go on world wide, but in most of the cases except despots like Saddam, the general population is not in a desparate state.
Drug money being laundered by the mafia is one thing, but holding back much needed money for food and medical supplies is something else altogether.

- Collapse -
Amen!
Feb 29, 2004 7:53PM PST

The thing is that Kofi has his OWN fingers dirty in that Oil For Food thing. Administering that was nothing but a cash cow for the UN which recieved 5% as an administration fee. They had as much a conflict of interest as the Germans, French and Russians did who were still dealing with Saddam.

A new UN should begin by giving the vote ONLY to countries in which their citizens have some type of vote on who their leaders are. That eliminates the mobocracy of dictators. The thing is, the US has to go around the UN to do things right. I wish we weren't still then part of that dinosaur.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
I wish we weren't still a part of that dinosaur. - lol Dinosaurs have small brains - so even more reason not to be a part Evie :) NT
Mar 1, 2004 6:24AM PST

NT

- Collapse -
Re:I must have missed something -- I wasn't responding to the article
Feb 29, 2004 12:53PM PST

Hi, Del.

I was responding entirely to Steve's slam: "What I find most amazing, that there are people who are members of Speakeasy who speak out in support of that terrible evil man."

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Well it isn't you Dave so why are you making such an issue about it ?
Feb 29, 2004 8:30PM PST

I don't buy your point that because Saddam was weak in comparison to hitler we should just stand by and let him continue - you are just trying to find an excuse to continue your condemnation of the invasion.
It's time you realised that sometimes there is a need to get rid of garbage in this world like Saddam, and stop hiding behind your superior education.

- Collapse -
Re:Well it isn't you Dave so why are you making such an issue about it ?
Feb 29, 2004 8:45PM PST

Steve

Please consider - many people in your country as well as those here in the UK had reservations about the conflict, and whilst specifically not condemning the conflict, still only consider it to have been "half right", i.e. yes, but not necessarily at that time and not with the ensuing pandemonium without prior thought.

Everyone I'm sure agrees that we want a world free of such abhorrent people - but as for Dave's education, that is an unwarranted throw-away line: we are all, as individuals, entitled to our own opinions, and by that I mean all of us irrespective of what background or origin.

Why not respond to Dave's post in the spirit in which it was meant?

Regards
Mo

- Collapse -
that is an unwarranted throw-away line?
Mar 1, 2004 4:29AM PST

Not sure what you are saying there Mo, Dave is a very highly educated person, and I am not saying because of it that he doesn't have the right to express his views, I just do not agree with them on this issue.
B.T.W nobody has openly supported Saddam on here, but at least one person has shown so much hatred for jews, that it is very easy to assume his ardent support for Saddam. Strange logic I know, but a trick of the mind is to fault.

- Collapse -
Free Reign...
Mar 1, 2004 3:57PM PST
B.T.W nobody has openly supported Saddam on here, but at least one person has shown so much hatred for jews, that it is very easy to assume his ardent support for Saddam. - SteveGargini

No one to my knowledge here in SE hates the Jewish people. Several have questioned the actions of the Israeli government, which like every government is capable of error. Israel's policies are not exempt from International scrutiny. Their silly wall is being challenged in the World court right now. Also, the Israeli Supreme Court has put a halt to the construction of the wall...

People have a right to question and have opinions about the actions of all governments on earth, including Israel's. Just because you prefer to give the Israeli government free reign, even if it causes more suffering on both sides of the wall, doesn't mean that everyone has to follow your lead...

Those who profess to be Christian yet don't act Christian-like may not be judged so favorably by God. WWJD? I don't believe that your wild claims, labels, and judgements would be in sync with his...
- Collapse -
Stop speaking in riddles Blake and explain yourself - what have I said which has anything to do with God in this thread?
Mar 2, 2004 7:14AM PST

NT

- Collapse -
Those who profess to be Christian yet don't act Christian-like may not be judged so favorably by God
Mar 2, 2004 7:49AM PST

Oh! you mean why don't we just stand idly by and allow the terrorists to blow our heads off - That perhaps would be the christian thing to do -
No sorry Blake, I don't think that would be a very brave thing to do. It may be the sort of thing you would be prepared to do but it isn't mine.

- Collapse -
Promoting The Proven Lies...
Mar 2, 2004 12:07PM PST
Oh! you mean why don't we just stand idly by and allow the terrorists to blow our heads off - SteveGargini

Interesting that you are still using this lie as justification for our actions in Iraq even after most now realize that Iraq was never a threat to either of us. There were no Nuclear weapons. There were no Chemical weapons. There were no Biological weapons. There were no weapons at all that were even remotely a threat to the UK or US...

Why do you continue to believe in these outright lies and intentional deceptions while personally insulting those who were right all along? There are many apologists who will never accept the truth. Hell, there are some who still believe Nixon did nothing wrong. Feel free to continue promoting the proven lies, but don't get angry when most don't follow your lead...

Judas turned on Jesus, so it shouldn't be so surprising or shocking to see someone turn on those who once considered him a friend. Brattboyys is probably a bad influence on those who frequent there...
- Collapse -
Re:Those who profess to be Christian yet don't act Christian-like may not be judged so favorably by God
Mar 2, 2004 12:12PM PST

Hi, Steve.

>>That perhaps would be the christian thing to do <<
In fact, it is. But most of us aren't that good Christians (I'm not either). As one priest I knew used to say back in the VietNam days when this issue came up, "to be a good Christian, you gotta look good on wood."

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Let's face it Dave, it is almost impossible to stay alive and be a good christian in those circumstances. You rarely get a second chance to turn the cheek against a high velocity bullet :( NT
Mar 3, 2004 4:37AM PST

NT

- Collapse -
Re: Well it isn't you Dave so why are you making such an issue about it ?
Feb 29, 2004 9:49PM PST

Hi, Steve.

Unfortunately the world is full of garbage like Saddam. But the rule of international law says that one country isn't free to interfere in the affairs of another simply because they dislike that country's leadership. There has to be a clear, major, and imminent threat outside the country in question. THAT principle is why Bush et al. invented the whole WMD nonsense. Without a clear external threat, our invasion of Iraq violated international law. Was Saddam a bad, even evil dictator? Of course. Is the world better off without him -- really, only time will tell. From our perspective, if we end up with another hard-line fundamentalist state, maybe not. Are the Iraqi people -- in the short run, for sure. in the long run -- it depends. But all that is irrelevant -- absent a clear causus belli, our actions were contrary to the rule of international law. Bush et al. are now essentially trying to chnage the story to the equivalent of the Old West's "he needed killing." That's fine in the Wild West, but if you try it in a civilized society, you usually end up in jail.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Causus belli, Dave...
Feb 29, 2004 11:07PM PST

Casus belli, Dave? He attemped to invade another country and used WMDs in that process. (Remember the Iran-Iraq war, Dave? He used WMDs on his own people. Later he invaded and occupied another country (Kuwait)and in that time peroid sent ballistic weapons into yet another country (Israel). When stopped and driven out of Kuwait he signed an agreement with a an oranization of countries promissing things. Echoes of the pre-WWII "This is our last territorial demand.".
Now, for political reasons of your party of choice you pronounce that there was no "causus belli" when he failed to follow that agreement. Are all end of hostilities agreements between counries or groups of countries now worthless waste paper in your view of world affairs?
Bush did not invent WMD's, Chruchill did not invent things like Auschwitz .

- Collapse -
What Dave said there J. underlines my feelings that International law is inadequate
Mar 1, 2004 3:58AM PST

in cases like this. The moment Saddam was shown to cause thousands of deaths using poison gases on his own people, International law should automatically make him a criminal to humanity, and give another country the legal right to invade and arrest the leader. Now that would make things a great deal easier to get rid of scum like Saddam.
Dave is stating how things are at present as with international law, but I.M.O it should be changed.

- Collapse -
Re:What Dave said there J. underlines my feelings that International law is inadequate
Mar 1, 2004 4:41AM PST

Hi, Steve.

The problem with what you propose is that it would rapidly lead to major wars all over the place. There was a frightening piece on 60 Minutes last night about how "The Diary of Anne Frank" is being used to teach North Korean students to view the US as evil, complete with concentration camps. So does that mean North Korea can invade us to free our prisoners?

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
I saw it, Dave...
Mar 1, 2004 5:10AM PST

Dave, I saw it. When they showed those pictures of the sarving kids who were not the children of those party member "big wigs", did you also happen to think of Cambodia's "Killing Fields"?
Did you catch the BBC's story about the conditions for the "common people" on cable when it was showed? Grim footage smuggled out by someone who would sneak in, shoot footage, and get it out.

- Collapse -
Not sure J. that we will ever be able to stop all the atrocities happening in the world, but Iraq certainly has made a good start :)
Mar 1, 2004 5:32AM PST

Obviously the reason for invasion wasn't one of humanitarian reason, but when the full scale of misery was realised, it was nice to see a great deal of effort made to get the population back to some semblance of civility. Happy

- Collapse -
Re: Not sure J. that we will ever be able to stop all the atrocities happening in the world, but Iraq certainly has made a good start :)
Mar 1, 2004 10:07PM PST

Hi, Steve.

The point is that atrocities are in the eye of the beholder. What if someone decides that our use of the death penalty, reviled in most of the civilized world, means we're in violation of human rights and that justifies military action against us? Where do you draw the line at interfering in a nation's internal affairs? We already have a lousy record in that regard, notably Allende's Chile and of course VietNam.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re: I saw it, Dave...
Mar 1, 2004 10:05PM PST

Hi, J.

Another very bad place -- probably much worse than Saddam's Iraq, in fact...

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
So does that mean North Korea can invade us to free our prisoners? - Now that would be funny :)
Mar 1, 2004 5:17AM PST

It's a well known thing that all new laws have a few teething problems Dave Happy

- Collapse -
Restructuring of the UN? - I will go with that ...
Feb 29, 2004 7:39PM PST

After some 50+ years, the UN has in some respects come to be regarded (or perhaps has devolved into) a "peace keeping" and "clean up" body and, of course, a distributor of aid. There could well be a case for separating policy-making (i.e. in advance) from "after the event" activities to make this more clearly defined - with the relevant "brains" approaching each aspect more fittingly.

With so many countries, there will always be dissenters to any policy - the fundamental overall policy will effectively still have the same agenda, and therefore the same problems. That is not to suggest that we can't come up with a better arrangement, and as this is now in the spotlight, hopefully the "best brains" are working on it.

Regards
Mo

- Collapse -
You should at least compare apples with apples....
Feb 29, 2004 9:50AM PST

if you're going to make comparisons. Just how many haitians did Aristide run thru a shredder? How many of his own people did he gas? Saddam was exactly the type of person the U.N. was created to deal with and it did nothing but pass ineffective resolutions that it also failed to enforce. Aristide's crimes against humanity are nothing compared to Saddam's.

- Collapse -
Clay, Are you sure that you yourself are comparing apples with apples? ....
Feb 29, 2004 7:18PM PST

Let me set aside Dave's main point that people on SE have not (to my knowledge either) ever put forward any form of defence whatsoever for SH.

I believe Dave's other point was not "just how bad was he in comparison with other dictators", but more that everyone acknowledges that SH is fundamentally a bad man, but what crime did the (now dead) thousands upon thousands of Iraqi citizens commit?

You will probably know that there is a headline debate at the moment here in the UK (albeit retrospectively) as to the moral justification and legal entitlement for our involvement in the Iraqi war. I know that many US citizens also had reservations.

Regards
Mo

- Collapse -
Re:Clay, Are you sure that you yourself are comparing apples with apples? ....
Feb 29, 2004 7:49PM PST

I'm not comparing Hussein to anyone. I was simply pointing out that comparing Aristide to Hussein is not a comparison at all so your title is totally irrelevant.

As for the Iraqis I suppose you are referring to all of those that took up arms in an attempt to defend Hussein and prevent him being deposed. Oh well, people die in war. I still think it is better that we did something to remedy the plight of the vast majority of the Iraqi people instead of just standing around with our thumb up our **** for another 10 years. Had the U.N. done it's job in the first place there may not have been a second Iraqi war.

- Collapse -
Thousands upon thousands of Iraqi citizens killed by the alliance Mo - where did you get those figures from?? NT
Mar 1, 2004 5:44AM PST

NT

- Collapse -
or perhaps you are getting confused with the thousands upon thousands of Iraqis butchered by Saddam :( NT
Mar 1, 2004 5:48AM PST

NT

- Collapse -
Re: Thousands upon thousands of Iraqi citizens killed -- not just by Alliance, though.
Mar 1, 2004 10:16PM PST
New Study: 37,137 Iraqi Civilians Killed Since Invasion.
That's as of Septemeber -- another 110 were killed just today in bombings. Point is, for all his evil ways Saddam had sectarian violence under control in Iraq. That genie has now been let out of the bottle, thanks to us, and there are numerous predictions that Iraq may disintegrate in civil war. I pray to God that doesn't happen, but if it should, any moral high ground claiming that the average Iraqi is "better off without Saddam" would frankly be nonsense. Unless you're of the "better dead than Red" mentality, living in tyranny is usually preferable to dying in lawless anarchy, under the "lesser of two evils" principle.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
- Collapse -
Pitiful, absolutely pitiful........
Mar 2, 2004 12:22AM PST

Leftist vomit, unworth of more response.

DE