0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

 
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 08:02 pm
From the Case Against the UN article--

Oil Contracts for Political Support

The inquiries into the United Nations Oil-for-Food program result from the release in January of a list of 270 individuals, companies and institutions that allegedly received lucrative oil contracts from Saddam Hussein's former regime in return for political support.

The list was published by an Iraqi independent newspaper which claimed the document was discovered in the files of the former Iraqi Oil Ministry in Baghdad.

Oil vouchers were allegedly given either as gifts or as payment for goods imported into Iraq in violation of the U.N. sanctions.

The following are the names of some of those listed as receiving Iraqi oil contracts (amounts are in millions of barrels of oil):

Russia
The Companies of the Russian Communist Party: 137 million
The Companies of the Liberal Democratic Party: 79.8 million
The Russian Committee for Solidarity with Iraq: 6.5 million and 12.5 million (two separate contracts)
Head of the Russian Presidential Cabinet: 90 million
The Russian Orthodox Church: 5 million


France
Charles Pasqua, former minister of interior: 12 million
Trafigura (Patrick Maugein), businessman: 25 million
Ibex: 47.2 million
Bernard Merimee, former French ambassador to the United Nations: 3 million
Michel Grimard, founder of the French-Iraqi Export Club: 17.1 million


Syria
Firas Mostafa Tlass, son of Syria's defense minister: 6 million

Turkey
Zeynel Abidin Erdem: more than 27 million
Lotfy Doghan: more than 11 million

Indonesia
Megawati Sukarnoputri: 11 million

Spain
Ali Ballout, Lebanese journalist: 8.8 million

Yugoslavia
The Socialist Party: 22 million
Kostunica's Party: 6 million

Canada
Arthur Millholland, president and CEO of Oilexco: 9.5 million

Italy
Father Benjamin, a French Catholic priest who arranged a meeting between the pope and Tariq Aziz: 4.5 million
Roberto Frimigoni: 24.5 million

United States
Samir Vincent: 7 million
Shakir Alkhalaji: 10.5 million

United Kingdom
George Galloway, member of Parliament: 19 million
Mujaheddin Khalq: 36.5 million

South Africa
Tokyo Saxwale: 4 million

Jordan
Shaker bin Zaid: 6.5 million
The Jordanian Ministry of Energy: 5 million
Fawaz Zureikat: 6 million
Toujan Al Faisal, former member of Parliament: 3 million

Lebanon
The son of President Lahoud: 5.5 million

Egypt
Khaled Abdel Nasser: 16.5 million
Emad Al Galda, businessman and Parliament member: 14 million

Palestinian Territories
The Palestinian Liberation Organization: 4 million
Abu Al Abbas: 11.5 million


Qatar
Hamad bin Ali Al Thany: 14 million

Libya
Prime Minister Shukri Ghanem: 1 million

Chad
Foreign minister of Chad: 3 million

Brazil
The October 8th Movement: 4.5 million

Myanmar (Burma)
The minister of the Forests of Myanmar: 5 million

Ukraine
The Social Democratic Party: 8.5 million
The Communist Party: 6 million
The Socialist Party: 2 million
The FTD oil company: 2 million
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 08:30 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
So what is your point? That the desire of members of this administration to invade Iraq predates the event that you claim motivates it by an even greater amount?


Now their you go again with another of your non sequiturs. In what you quoted, there is no expressed desire by anyone to invade Iraq. None! The expressed desire was for a military presence in the middle east. The US already had such. So I guess it was probably a plan for maintaining the status quo.

Craven de Kere wrote:
You can read pages and pages of the case to attack Iraq being made by members of the administration.


Who? When? Where? How about a quote or two to that effect?

Craven de Kere wrote:
The majority of the main players of this administration were arguing for an attack on Iraq long before 9/11.
.
EVIDENCE PLEASE Exclamation

Surely you understand that what seems like a good idea a priori does not necessarily seem like a good idea a posteriori. Friday's game plan is not necessarily implemented on Sunday. Monday's review is what contains what actually happened and what caused it to happen; not what one merely thought to have happened and what one merely thought to have caused it to happen. Too often people err in jumping to equate correlation with cause(i.e., equating co-occurrences with one or more causes and the rest with their effects).
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 08:55 pm
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 08:57 pm
ican711nm wrote:

In what you quoted, there is no expressed desire by anyone to invade Iraq. None! The expressed desire was for a military presence in the middle east. The US already had such. So I guess it was probably a plan for maintaining the status quo.


Ican, I respectfully suggest that you are wholly unfamiliar with the PNAC.

1) Their desire was to increase the military presence in the mideast beyond reliance on Saudi Arabia and the few other footprints.

2) My quote does, in fact illustrate the desire to invade Iraq but perhaps this is more clear with context. I previded you with the name of the document for a bit more context and you can look it up anytime.

I will facillitate this by providing a link:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

You will probably enjoy it. In fact I suspect you will identify very closely with every single policy advocated on that website.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
You can read pages and pages of the case to attack Iraq being made by members of the administration.


Who? When? Where? How about a quote or two to that effect?


Ican, I gave you a quote.

How's this, I will give you a letter from 1998 where they openly ask of Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein. Would that work?

Comes from the same site ican, the Project for the New American Century and the likes of Rummy and other administration members signed it in 1998.

This is an even more explicit piece of evidence than the general body of documents on the site which counts more administration members as affiliates.

Here, ican, is a link to the letter. This is as explicit as it can get. An open letter calling on Clinton to act to remove Saddam from power.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Quote:
EVIDENCE PLEASE Exclamation


Ican, I'll tell you right now that I am not going to be answering calls for evidence if due dilligence into the evidence I have already provided is not part of an effort made on your part.

I have now gone above and beyond the call of duty and helped sate your lacking curiosity by bringing links to well known documents right to you.

I've brought the water to the horse ican. I can do little more and am motivated to do even less.

Quote:
Surely you understand that what seems like a good idea a priori does not necessarily seem like a good idea a posteriori. Friday's game plan is not necessarily implemented on Sunday. Monday's review is what contains what actually happened and what caused it to happen; not what one merely thought to have happened and what one merely thought to have caused it to happen. Too often people err in jumping to equate correlation with cause(i.e., equating co-occurrences with one or more causes and the rest with their effects).


All true. But you also have to agree that if these folk were clamoring to get rid of Saddam years before 9/11 your inference that 9/11 motivated them to wish to do so is suspect.

I posit that they perceived ample motivation to do so prior to 9/11.

I'll let their own words speak on that. Here's the link again:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 09:59 pm
Excellent CDK!
I believe the adage is 'you can lead a horse to drink but you can not make him water'. Smile
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 10:10 pm
Felt this should be shared.

Friday, June 25, 2004
The "thing" which I supposed to be calling the Iraqi government is going to get the blessings of bush in something like a week or lessÂ…

The 30th of June is being marketed by the bush administration as THE day, the day that Iraqis are going to have their "freedom" and take their brand new free Iraq on a plate of silver as we say in Arabic, in a very similar procedure of some primitive tribes having creepy ceremonies and making tattoos on the bodies of teenagers to announce their maturity and adulthood.

Doesn't it need a bit more to announce our liberation?

The handover of the small-boring-administrative-responsibilities to some selected groups of Iraq employees (guards, policemen, ministers, president) is not going to change anything on the ground for Iraqis. The real authorities and decision makers aren't going to leave the fence of the green zone. They will send someone in the early morning of the 1st of July to change the small dirty "CPA" banner full of bullet holes outside the green zone, and replace it with a smaller one with "the American embassy in Baghdad". Unfortunately, this embassy is going to be the real government. The embushy is going to rule Iraq by small "representative offices" distributed all around the country.

If anyone thinks I am exaggerating, please come and take a look on the American embassy in Amman, and see who is ruling this country.

The handover of the authorities is a small pathetic play that shouldn't distract us from the real thing happening on the ground. When the neo-cons attacked Iraq last year they introduced themselves as liberators, and that's why most of the Iraqis and some of the American people believed them, and believed in them, but now comes the time that both of us, Iraqis and Americans, should work hard to give Iraq its freedom back, to stop building permanent military bases in Iraq, and to change this colonial strategy in keeping Iraq under the American political and economical control.

The American army is building six permanent bases in Iraq, three surrounding Baghdad, one in the south, on in the east and on in the north. The three surrounding Baghdad are Al-Habbanyya, which is an old Iraq military base and airport near the artificial lake of Habbania, the second is Ar-Rasheed base in the south-east of Baghdad, and the third is At-Taji base in the north of Baghdad, which is the larges base in Iraq, it looks like a small city. The other three bases are Ali base near Nasryya, Al-Walid base northern to Falluja, and another base in Al-Mosul. These six bases are the cancer in the body of the new Iraq.

I have a clear position towards the thing happening at the end of this month. As a secular person with national beliefs, I don't see the bush administration step at the end of this month anything more than a political trick that will add more confusion to the world about the reality of what is happening in Iraq, it will start a new chapter of what will appear as an Iraqi-Iraqi conflicts and clashes, which is in real an Iraqi American one, but with Americans hiding behind Iraqis.

This will come along with other distracting moves like starting the Iraqi Hollywood: The Saddam Trial.
The right wing, conservative administration occupying the white house came to Iraq with bad intention, and it is a waste of time to try to fix and discuss their resolutions and decisions.

Both of us, the Iraqi and the American people, need another administration with different ideologies to start rebuilding the Iraq-American (and maybe the Arab-American) destroyed relations.
Posted by: Raed Jarrar / 3:19 AM

Source
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 11:08 pm
This half a sentence said all we need to know, "The American army is building six permanent bases in Iraq..."

I made it LARGE to make sure all the neocons see this.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 01:59 am
Sofia: Great info and link! Thank you.

Craven: I'd like to apologize for my petty name calling the other night. Embarrassed I can't rightly say why that felt so right at the time. Confused Anyway, my feelings of annoyance didn't justify my demeanor. (Passes generously loaded peace pipe :wink: ) BTW, Sofia's post reminded me where we last discussed International Law, If you are still curious about my answers, click HERE and scroll down till you see International Law: in bold type.

Ps. I'm back up to speed so feel free to fire away, and I promise not to cry. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 02:18 am
Quote:
Steve, if we knew precisely what we were going to find in Iraq as you suggest, don’t you think the planners would have done a better job of wording the threat instead of setting themselves up to be called liars for all eternity?


Thats a good point Bill. They couldn't. There was no possible reason for invading Iraq, apart from the "pre-emptive self defense" argument, that gave legal justification.

And even that is not universally accepted, as Craven will no doubt explain. Sad
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 02:35 am
Quote:
George Galloway, member of Parliament: 19 million



from Christian Science Monitor

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0620/p01s03-woiq.html

Galloway papers deemed forgeries

Iraq experts, ink-aging tests discredit documents behind earlier Monitor story.

By staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor


Sofia, Galloway successfully sued the CSM and British newspapers that reprinted the story. He was stitched up by CIA and SIS dirty tricks department for political reasons. Being the litigous sort, be careful, he might sue you too.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 02:47 am
Steve,
Pre-emptive self-defense could have been argued with different, less specific and less potentially embarrassing justification. Our lie guys are better than this. Statements like we are "99% sure" typically go relatively unchallenged, but provide outs when needed. Craven already explained that that there is really no legal remedy out there anyway and I think we can all agree that no country was going to declare war against us over it.

I think our guys fully expected their assumptions to prove accurate and considered the possibility of being wrong an acceptable risk. I know I did.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 03:47 am
Well certainly Tony Blair protests vigorously that if there were no WMD, he really truly honestly believed they had them when he sent the country to war.

In fact this very point provoked an almighty row earlier this year when a BBC reporter Andrew Gillingham said that the govt. inserted the "45 minutes from doomsday"* claim in its Iraq Weapons Document "knowing it was probably false."

(* this is how the newspapers headlined it)

The source of this turned out to be Dr David Kelly, former weapons inspector and world leading biological weapons expert who committed suicide not long after.

Although this claim was made only once, at 6.07 am when few people heard it, the govt. machine pursued the BBC relentlessly. It went right to the top. The Chairman and Chief Executive initially backed Gillighan, but the government was adamant and forced them both out of office. (And Gillighan resigned)

The British government's position now is that it was a legal war because we had to get rid of the wmd, and if it turns out there were no wmd (although the search will go on indefinitely...Blair will never admit there are none) it was an honest mistake, and not deliberate deception. [and anyone who suggests otherwise had better watch out]

So words matter. And so they should, many people have died and continue to die.

Disclaimer. At this juncture I would like to point out to any USUK spook reading this, that I do not believe any Prime Minister would knowingly take this country to war based on a false prospectus.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 10:42 am
Laughing
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 11:34 am
All these stories in the media about Chalabi should convince even the hard-core conservatives that our preemptive attack on Iraq was wrong.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 12:49 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
All these stories in the media about Chalabi should convince even the hard-core conservatives that our preemptive attack on Iraq was wrong.


Apparently Chalabi was trusted for a long time, so we ended up with Chalabi seconds....

Chalabi the presumed ally.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 12:50 pm
I don't put many links up for the thread. Here's one. Do me a favour, do yourself a favour; read it to the end, see if you can. Thanks

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/0625041.shtml

McTag
(have been busy, your answer later, Bill.)
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 01:05 pm
McTag wrote:
I don't put many links up for the thread. Here's one. Do me a favour, do yourself a favour; read it to the end, see if you can. Thanks

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/0625041.shtml

McTag
(have been busy, your answer later, Bill.)


Most telling quote from article:

Quote:
Speaking personally, none of the data in this film surprised me. Having spent every day of the last three years working to expose as many Americans as possible to the truth of the man they call President,


Simply a raving review from a like minded individual. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 02:58 pm
And some people follow in lock-step with the leaders of the Chalabi debacle.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 05:11 pm
lock-step... I see that a lot. What does that mean?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 05:15 pm
something about wearing dockers and republican cloth shirts, at least thats what Spiro said.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 3.74 seconds on 11/16/2024 at 12:22:04