Oil-for-Food/UN scandal deepens... - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

boneheaddoctor · #31 10-28-2005, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by koop

I better produce proof or what?

Here's the report, knock yourself out.

http://www.iic-offp.org/story27oct05.htm

so where in the volumous thing does it make those claims..I don't have a week to read it all.

koop · #32 10-28-2005, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

so where in the volumous thing does it make those claims..I don't have a week to read it all.

Several years into the Programme, Iraq realized it could generate illicit income outside the United Nations' oversight by requiring it's oil buyers to pay "surcharges" of generally between ten to thirty cents per barrel of oil. As described more fully below, the surcharge policy started in the autumn of 2000 and lasted through the autumn of 2002.

page 2

boneheaddoctor · #33 10-28-2005, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by koop

Several years into the Programme, Iraq realized it could generate illicit income outside the United Nations' oversight by requiring it's oil buyers to pay "surcharges" of generally between ten to thirty cents per barrel of oil. As described more fully below, the surcharge policy started in the autumn of 2000 and lasted through the autumn of 2002.

page 2

So explain all the French and German Munitions dating to te mid 90's adn the bribes to france germany and Russia very early into the program...

Convieniently about th etime they started being obstructionists...

early in the Clinton years....way before Bush too office and rendered that program moot and allowed it to be uncovered by the very Iraq campain you so venomously opposed.

koop · #34 10-28-2005, 01:45 PM

There were none, now you prove there was.

boneheaddoctor · #35 10-28-2005, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by koop

There were none, now you prove there was.

Its in that report....we found the documents in Saddams palace....Those same documents are what forced the UN into doing the investigation...the one they so badly tried to inhibit by shredding files in mass.

I'm not saying Clinton was in the middle of it...( but I bet he was) but that it happened during his 8 years of ignoring Saddams escapades.

koop · #36 10-28-2005, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

Its in that report....we found the documents in Saddams palace....Those same documents are what forced the UN into doing the investigation...the one they so badly tried to inhibit by shredding files in mass.

I'm not saying Clinton was in the middle of it...( but I bet he was) but that it happened during his 8 years of ignoring Saddams escapades.

Really? Where in the report?

boneheaddoctor · #37 10-28-2005, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by koop

Really? Where in the report?

about 100 pages before the quotes that claim it all happened on Bushes watch..You know ehre those are so backtrack a little.

MTI · #38 10-28-2005, 03:24 PM

I was personally saddened to see Daimler-Chrysler on the list of "bad boys" but somewhat bemused at the amount.

mikemover · #39 10-29-2005, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by koop

Yeah, I've got something useful to say, cleanup on Aisle 7, get on it.

I'll just overlook this pointless, irrelevant, juvenile crap, and get on to the important stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by koop

When Cheney was running Halliburton, it sold more equipment to Iraq than any other company did. As first reported by The Financial Times on Nov. 3, 2000, Halliburton subsidiaries submitted $23.8 million worth of contracts with Iraq to the United Nations in 1998 and 1999 for approval by its sanctions committee.

Halliburton also has had dealings with Iran and Libya, both on the State Department’s list of terrorist states. Halliburton’s subsidiary Brown & Root, the Texas construction firm that does much business with the U.S. military, was fined $3.8 million for re-exporting goods to Libya in violation of U.S. sanctions.

Halliburton Logging Services, a former subsidiary, was charged with shipping six pulse neutron generators through Italy to Libya. In 1995, the company pled guilty to criminal charges that it violated the U.S. ban on exports to Libya. Halliburton was fined $1.2 million and will pay $2.61 million in civil penalties.

Two things:

1. You claimed that we "elected the CEO to be POTUS". Dick Cheney is NOT the President of the United States. Perhaps you should pay more attention to these minor little details.

2. I never made any claim that Halliburton had a spotless record. Regardless, it does not make the UN any less guilty of rampant corruption and gross incompetence in managing the oil-for-food program.

Mike

mikemover · #40 10-29-2005, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vronsky

Shocked again, Mike?
Welcome to the real world, Alice. Do the names Enron, Worldcom, Haliburton, etc, etc, ring a bell?
I suggest you get out more.

I get out PLENTY, thank you.

I already said that I was hardly shocked or surprised at any of this. Perhaps you, too, should pay more attention.

Corporate corruption is nothing new, just as corruption in the UN is nothing new. Just because something is common does not mean that it is legal, ethical, or OK to do. Wrong is wrong, no matter how many people are doing it. If this kind of stuff is "OK" with you as a "common business practice", then I'd suggest you reconsider your values.

Mike

koop · #41 10-29-2005, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

Two things:

1. You claimed that we "elected the CEO to be POTUS". Dick Cheney is NOT the President of the United States. Perhaps you should pay more attention to these minor little details.

2. I never made any claim that Halliburton had a spotless record. Regardless, it does not make the UN any less guilty of rampant corruption and gross incompetence in managing the oil-for-food program.

Mike

1. I know who the POTUS is. Cheney being president was a small joke which was, not surprisingly, lost on you.

2. No you never mentioned Halliburton, never expected you would. Because it's so much more fun to shout about the UN while ignoring our own hypocricy. No surpises you missed that point also.

mikemover · #42 10-29-2005, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by koop

1. I know who the POTUS is. Cheney being president was a small joke which was, not surprisingly, lost on you.

2. No you never mentioned Halliburton, never expected you would. Because it's so much more fun to shout about the UN while ignoring our own hypocricy. No surpises you missed that point also.

1. I didn't miss the joke. I just ignored it, because:
a. It's a very old, very tired joke already
b. The crap that the UN is getting away with is no laughing matter.

2. I hardly missed your point about Halliburton either. You're just pointing out the obvious. It is common knowledge that they are far from being without "sin".

It is also common knowledge that they are pretty much the ONLY company on this planet that is even remotely capable of actually doing the enormous variety of jobs that they do--on a far more enormous scale than most people can even visualize--for our military and our nation. The company's services are necessary for us right now, and they serve our purposes. The UN is not necessary, and does not serve our purposes.

Like I said... Halliburton's problems, nor your dislike of Cheney/Bush/whomever, doesn't absolve the UN of its many sins.

You're starting to sound like bonehead, with his "Yeah, but what about Bill Clinton? He did this and that" distraction tactics.

Mike

peragro · #43 10-29-2005, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by koop

1. I know who the POTUS is. Cheney being president was a small joke which was, not surprisingly, lost on you.

I don't think the joke was "lost", it's just simply not funny and really tiresome after the 1 X10^6 th time you hear it.

Ironic how the WMD evidence is called "lies" yet every intelligence service in the world supported the claim. Yet the "oil for food", (of which several prominent anti-war folks like MP Galloway profited and used their political power to oppose Hussein's overthrow) is passed off as "oh yeah, Halliburton did it too" when ample evidence proves that there was corruption at the very tops of the governments most opposed to Saddam's removal. Especially in the light of Halliburton being cleared of wrongdoing by a 3rd party audit.

But hey "UN lied, People Died!"

koop · #44 10-30-2005, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

1. I didn't miss the joke. I just ignored it, because:
a. It's a very old, very tired joke already
b. The crap that the UN is getting away with is no laughing matter.

No you didn't "ignore" it, you posted

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

I'll just overlook this pointless, irrelevant, juvenile crap, and get on to the important stuff.

Two things:

1. You claimed that we "elected the CEO to be POTUS". Dick Cheney is NOT the President of the United States. Perhaps you should pay more attention to these minor little details.

2. I never made any claim that Halliburton had a spotless record. Regardless, it does not make the UN any less guilty of rampant corruption and gross incompetence in managing the oil-for-food program.

Mike

Evidently you thought pointing out that Cheney was VP was "important" Thanks for the insight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

2. I hardly missed your point about Halliburton either. You're just pointing out the obvious. It is common knowledge that they are far from being without "sin".

It is also common knowledge that they are pretty much the ONLY company on this planet that is even remotely capable of actually doing the enormous variety of jobs that they do--on a far more enormous scale than most people can even visualize--for our military and our nation. The company's services are necessary for us right now, and they serve our purposes. The UN is not necessary, and does not serve our purposes.

Like I said... Halliburton's problems, nor your dislike of Cheney/Bush/whomever, doesn't absolve the UN of its many sins.

You're starting to sound like bonehead, with his "Yeah, but what about Bill Clinton? He did this and that" distraction tactics.

Mike

That you think the UN is not necessary or doesn't serve our purposes is just idiotic. That the right wing gets their panties in a bunch over this oil for food scam, which didn't cost US taxpayers a nickel, but will ignore the BILLIONS our gov have pissed away in the same country is just embarrassing.

cmac2012 · #45 10-30-2005, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

I was personally saddened to see Daimler-Chrysler on the list of "bad boys" but somewhat bemused at the amount.

The kickback was $7,500 roughly? The contract couldn't have been too big for that. Someone was probably selling some parts -- 10 transmissions, some brake parts, say 5 new engines, rear axles, and some misc. Wouldn't take much to cover that amount real quick.

Maybe they thought it was a registration fee.