THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Your opinion re Galloway, timber, differs completely from that of Crown Prosecution Service.

In what way, Walter? The 2003 libel suit has nothing whatsoever to do with the current allegations, as I pointed out in some detail. Galloway, specifically by name, is again on the hook in the current investigation. While there has been as yet no finding of his culpability, or that of others likewise implicated, this particular matter is open, and appears to have somewhat more extensive and substantial foundation than the matter in which The Crown held for Galloway.

0 Replies

[quote="timberlandko] The 2003 libel suit has nothing whatsoever to do with the current allegations, as I pointed out in some detail. Galloway is again on the hook in the current investigation. While there has been as yet no finding of his culpability, this particular matter is open, and appears to have somewhat more extensive and substantial foundation than the matter in which The Crown held for Galloway.[/quote]

Well, they think different - at least, what I heard a couple of weeks ago.

(And there is no investigation against him - until that is done unlawfully in secret.)

0 Replies

I'm unaware of any Crown Prosecution Service pronouncement regarding Mr. Galloway in context of the current Oil For Food Scandal investigations. If you have something I've been unable to find, Walter, could you point me to it, please? As far as I'm able to discern, Mr. Galloway, not singularly but in concert with numerous other individuals and entities, very much is part of multiple current investigations, which all, to the best of my knowledge, are being conducted neither secretly nor unlawfully..

0 Replies

Quote:

Perhaps my logic is twisty (whatever that means) and perhaps it's not; perhaps it is your logic that is twisty.

Perhaps it is. Smile

When encountering situations in which I am unsure what is and is not 'most probable,' I tend to appeal to a rule that has rarely, if ever, failed me:

Which answer to the problem (with the problem being, 'what is most probable in this case?) displays a greater amount of the basest human emotions: greed, envy, fear, intolerance, hate? For, in the vast majority of cases, this is the correct answer.

As my father would have said, 'where there's smoke, there's fire.'

I realize that these are not what one would call 'structured arguments,' and I'm really not intending them to be, but it answers this:

Quote:

I also think that George Bush probably ordered that invasion believing that it was probably in the interest of all Americans.

Many here, and this probably includes you, think otherwise.

Quite nicely for me.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

So you know more than he does.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

I don't think any of us can continue to act as though the UN was an honest player in the decision to back away from the Iraq War ... When those making the decisions have been paid off, it has to color their veracity ... established that Mr Giangrandi was one actor in an international charade that helped Mr Hussein's regime divert hundreds of millions of dollars from the United Nations oil-for-food programme to its own ends ... The objectivity of the UN in its opposition to US intentions re Saddam's Iraq, given which nations were the key proponents of that opposition, is at the very least rendered suspect ... the very nature of the alledged misconduct, which was designed, and practiced, specifically in such manner as to criminally bypass established contract controls shielding the activities ... kickbacks, illegal undercharges, and outright bribery ... from legitimate oversight ... in substantial practice was used blatantly to cloak the reality of greed and self interest in a costume of good intention and noble sounding but thoroughly obfuscatory pronouncements ...

This plus the genocide, allegedly occurring in three African states, that the Secretary General continues to avoid carefully investigating, makes the UN General Assembly, the UN Security Council, and the UN Secretary General highly suspect to me.

I once wrote here that Americans don't trust the UN any more than they trust Osama. I was asked to provide evidence of that. Such evidence (let's say more than 50% of Americans) one way or the other, is probably obtainable through a legitimate poll, I am not competent to take. So I amend my remarks as follows:

Most of my American acquaintences, both left and right have told me "they don't trust the UN [meaning the UN General Assembly, the UN Security Council, and the UN Secretary General] any more than they trust Osama".

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Most of my American acquaintences, both left and right have told me "they don't trust the UN [meaning the UN General Assembly, the UN Security Council, and the UN Secretary General] any more than they trust Osama".

Yes, the Security Council - would those 50% actually know, whom they equate with osama Laughing

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

When encountering situations in which I am unsure what is and is not 'most probable,' I tend to appeal to a rule that has rarely, if ever, failed me:

Which answer to the problem (with the problem being, 'what is most probable in this case?) displays a greater amount of the basest human emotions: greed, envy, fear, intolerance, hate? For, in the vast majority of cases, this is the correct answer.

"Displays" by whom? I think the case is often made that it is often the accuser(s) and not the accused who are displaying the "greater amount of the basest human emotions: greed, envy, fear, intolerance, hate". For example, why is the greater amount of discussion from the left focused on alleged motives and not on alleged benefits versus penalties of actions and/or their consequences. In my own experience, it is the attacker of motives and not the attacker of actions and/or their consequences who possesses the least justification for his/her position. In the 1930s and on, I encountered this ad hominem BS as the persistent tactics of the most evil of humans (e.g., Hitler, Stalin).

where there's smoke, there's fire is often misapplied to mean where there's accusation there is guilt . That of course, is a contradiction of the notion innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Yes, the Security Council - would those 50% actually know, whom they equate with osama

Since they are all my acquaintances, they are all, on the right or on the left, highly informed. Laughing

Right now, right or wrong, they most readily equate some of the behavior of the French and Russian governments with Osama type behavior. Twisted Evil

0 Replies

So, actually they dislike some or more member states of the Security Council but not the Security Council itself (which would include e.g. the USA).

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

So, actually they dislike some or more member states of the Security Council but not the Security Council itself (which would include e.g. the USA).

No! You should have posted:
They dislike the behavior of the governments of some member states of the Security Council. They believe this behavior is controlling the behavior of the Security Council, so they dislike the consequent behavior of the Security Council too.

If you wish to debate whether invading Iraq was probably in the interest of all Americans, I'll debate the affirmative recognizing that some here including you could possibly eventually come up with persuasive evidence that it is not in the interest of all Americans.

0 Replies

I don't wish to discuss that, I just wanted to make clear that "The Security Council" consists of members including the e.g. USA; like the 'Congress' consists of the Senate and the House of Repressantives, and in both are members of two parties ... :wink:

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I don't wish to discuss that, I just wanted to make clear that "The Security Council" consists of members including the e.g. USA; like the 'Congress' consists of the Senate and the House of Repressantives, and in both are members of two parties ... :wink:

You really are a fountain of insight! I bet you are also aware that some Americans don't trust the US Congress (but they trust it more than Osama :wink: ) because of what the US Senate has done over the last almost 4 years. Likewise, they don't trust the US Senate because of what a minority of the Senate has done over the last almost 4 years. Likewise they don't trust the minority of Senators because of what some of the minority of Senators have done over the last 4 years. Rolling Eyes

If you wish to debate whether invading Iraq was probably in the interest of all Americans, I'll debate the affirmative recognizing that some here including you could possibly eventually come up with persuasive evidence that it is not in the interest of all Americans.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

That of course directly implies that you think he didn't have the political capital to rectify our intelligence and military so as to detect and pre-emptively prevent 9/11/2001.

No, it does not. It directly implies that he did not have the hindsight with which to do so.

Quote:

Well there you just dumped on another fallacious leftist accusation against Bush. Good work! Keep it up!

I've done so time and time again on these forums.

What you have not shown the capacity for is the cessation of your arguments based on guilt by association.

If you want to argue with me, argue with my arguments and don't expect me to take up other idiotic arguments you may have encountered from others.

I do not do this to you, I do not hold you responsible for refuting idiocies that other people with similar political affiliation to you espouse and it is a simple decency in arguments that you would be well served to respect.

Craven de Kere wrote:

First, misquoter, it was not a claim, it was part of a suppose; ok, a false suppose. Second, reality-challenged, Bush did in fact wait until 3/2003 to begin to do that (i.e., invade Iraq). I wrote nothing about "get ready".

You are moving the goalposts Ican. You did in fact talk of getting ready while not using those specific words. From memory: you spoke of getting the intel and logistics in place for the war.

If you continue to deny this I'll look up your exact wording. But this is a minor distraction.

Quote:

My humor is clearly too subtle for you.

Do not fear, I think frivolity is a perfectly acceptable explanation for a large amount of your arguments.

Quote:

I don't really think invading Afganistan a distraction either. I'll explain. You referenced a 1998 letter to Clinton (signed by some current members of his administration) and claimed it was evidence of Bush's intentions in January 2001. I thought that silly, so I thought it would be fun to go along with the gag. If he was so dedicated to replacing Saddam as you claim, then for him Afghanistan would have been for him a distraction. See? No, I bet you don't see.

Oh, I "see", but what I "see" is underwhelming. If it was supposed to be funny then that's fine. I've thought many of these arguments were jokes, if not explicitly funny.

Quote:

Geez! Yes of course I was being silly and creating a straw man. I was thereby mocking a leftist position which deserves to be mocked.

Well Ican, like I said, I do not use cartoonish positions from the right to discuss with you. I hold you responsible merely for your own positions.

If, in a discussion with me, you wish to formulate arguments against positions I do not hold that you have heard from others I will have to simply request once again that you quit the straw man fallacies.

If you have a beef with those people's positions take it up with them. Do not ascribe them to my position and my arguments.

This is a basis courtesy in debate that I have never failed to afford you.

Quote:

It is equivalent to arguments many leftists have used here.

I am not "many leftists". I am sometimes not even "one leftist". If you aim to address those nebulous "leftists" why do you waste my time?

I do not use you as a spitoon for any expectoration I would like to direct at "many righties".

Quote:

It is like many of your arguments here (currently, you are arguing Bush ordered an invasion of Iraq because he wanted to not because he ought to).

Now you have descended to outright lies. I am not arguing that "Bush ordered an invasion of Iraq because he wanted to not because he ought to".

In fact, I bet he believed it was an "ought".

I am arguing against a claim you made. You claimed his motivation for invading Iraq was 9/11 and I am pointing out that there is ample evidence that prior to 9/11 motivation to invade Iraq existed as part of a call to a more agressive projection of power in the region.

Again, Ican, I count on a modicum of intellectual integrity and basic courtesy. If you are unable to hold yourself to such a pedestrian standard why not simply argue with the many others who are willing to descend to those levels?

Quote:

For example, you argued that the Iraq war is unlawful under UN rules

No, I did not. Ican, I must again respectfully request that you avoid lying about what I argue.

In turn I do my level best not to lie about yours.

Quote:

Yes, I am accusing you of being like a metaphorical griddle calling a metaphorical pot greasy. Please keep it up. It's really great fun.

Ican, are such tactics your only stock and store? Can you manage to hold a decent conversation? Can you debate without fallacy?

Or are you going to continue to wear your fallacious arguments as a badge of honor and sharpen your considerable skills with the use of emoticons and large fonts?

Ican, you made claims. I addressed them. You resorted to straw men that you seem proud of.

I am merely informing you of my disinterest in debating on the level on which you seem to prefer.

Quote:

In either case, your BS statement constitutes an equivalent to the standard capitulation statement. A symbolic white flag displayed by you, for example,
Quote:
white flag
, would have been quite sufficent and more efficient.

This is reminiscent of playground bluster. "Yeah! You better walk away."

I offered you no "capitulation" Ican. I offered you no "white flag".

I did, however, inform you of my disinterest in some of the sophomoric playground tactics you have adopted.

Should you demonstrate the intellectual integrity to stick to the arguments and positions and not indulge in your straw men and falsehoods I am more than willing to continue to engage.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

1) The objectivity of the UN in its opposition to US intentions re Saddam's Iraq, given which nations were the key proponents of that opposition, is at the very least rendered suspect

Support your claim. You can do no more than to support it than you could to charge anyone with lacking "objectivity".

If you want to claim that the world's rejection of the invasion of Iraq was motivated by corruption then do so.

If you just want to fling **** and hope it sticks then do so as well. Just don't expect to be able to demand that it receives the attention you think it deserves (i.e. do not be surprised if it doesn't stick).

So, what is your claim? Just voicing a nebulous position that is in line with what you are inclined to believe or do you have an actual claim and position to stake?

Quote:

3) CdK's dismissal-by-implication through mention of US participation in the contract approval process fails to take into account the very nature of the alledged misconduct, which was designed, and practiced, specifically in such manner as to criminally bypass established contract controls shielding the activities ... kickbacks, illegal undercharges, and outright bribery ... from legitimate oversight.

Timber you make little sense. But at least you made a claim somewhere in that convoluted sentence.

So now, I ask you to support the claim you made about me. When you realize you can't do so, it would be honourable to retract it.

Quote:

I would add, contrary to CdK's assertion, that the veracity and provenance of the documents Al-Mada referrenced is subject to no credible challenge

Show me the assertion you acribe to me. When you neglect to find it, retract your lie.

Quote:

, not even from The UN Itself.

This is a misleading claim. The UN did not validate the content of those documents and nothing in this link claims otherwise.

The documents listed contracts but not only that. I respectfully suggest that you are quite unfamiliar with the documents.

If you would like to assert the veracity of the contents of those documents I welcome your attempt to do so.

I have read them dozens of times and have made extensive efforts to do so.

I believe you did nothing but decide to think they were credible.

So, if you want to make a case for the veracity of the documents' contents I welcome such an attempt and will respond accordingly.

Quote:

I question the foundation, as exemplified by general UN and specific UN Security Council Member State conduct, of opposition to US activites.

This comes as no surprise. It is not a spectacular claim.

What would be interesting is if you can provide any substantiation for this position.

I am not easily fooled by posting reams of links that do not substantiate them so allow me to save you some time.

I fully suspect that there was corruption. Almost any time you eliminate the free market and have exclusivity in dealings the value of the exchanged commodities is artificially high.

In that setting corruption is common. For example, Haliburton was overcharging for gas.

Now unlike many rabble rousers I do not see Haliburton's corruption as an indictment of the administrations motives. But your position is no better than theirs unless you can do more than fling ****.

It will only stick if you can substantiate it. Otherwise it has as much worth as any of the claims people are at times prone to make.

Quote:

it is my contention that such idealistic, and perfectly legitimate, complaint was of far less practical and pragmatic concern and effect than was simple graft and corruption, and in substantial practice was used blatantly to cloak the reality of greed and self interest in a costume of good intention and noble sounding but thoroughly obfuscatory pronouncements.

This is simply a wordy attempt to make it stick.

Hint: big words do not constitute substantiation.

Can you substantiate "your contention"? If not, that's fine and it will be given all the consideration it is due.

Quote:

Should the current Oil For Food corruption investigation disclose proven culpability on the part of senior UN and UN Member State officials, such finding would not, of course, vindicate US action. Such finding, however, certainly would invalidate much claim to legitimacy of intent posed by those who were in opposition to The US, and by extension, call to question the overall legitimacy of The UN, as a body, itself.

How so? Just because you want it to? Just on the basis of the conviction of your belief?

Corruption on any scope automatically (and "certainly") means that the world's opposition to the war lacks "legitimacy of intent"?

Please tell me the magic formula that makes the positions of those who disagree with yours illigitimate.

Quote:

I don't think any of us can continue to act as though the UN was an honest player in the decision to back away from the Iraq War.

and say it appears, at the very least, to have been a case of the pot calling the kettle black.[/quote]

Oh, you make it very clear what you "think". You do not, however, even attempt to substantiate it.

I expect there to be findings of corruption.

The finding of corruption does not mean that the world's opposition to our agression is motivated by said corruption.

The people who benefit from said corruption will constitute less than a billionth of the war opponents.

The people who benefit will most likely not be in any position to decide their country's secutity council vote.

So if you want to claim the opposition to the war is illegitimate, then do so. Merely saying that there was corruption does not do so.

Make your causative case, and do not expect us to accept any conclusion you hope for when you argue it on a circumstantial and barely related basis.

0 Replies

Motive in criminal cases is a strong determining factor, in ascertaining the probability of guilt.

As Timber said, Such finding (that SC members with voting privileges, received exhorbitant sums 'bribes' through the OFF program) however, certainly would invalidate much claim to legitimacy of intent posed by those who were in opposition to The US, and by extension, call to question the overall legitimacy of The UN, as a body, itself
----
At square one in the accepted justice system, motive is factored in heavily. The case will be formulated based on facts--but to discount such a motive is disengenuous.

If it is discovered that the judge or jury has been bribed--they instantly lose credibility and legitimacy in the matter.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

SC members with voting privileges, received exhorbitant sums 'bribes' through the OFF program

Support this. Sofia, who the hell do you think has "voting privilidges"?

France is a feekin democracy whose people were very much opposed to it.

Some diplomat who is corrupt does not get to decide on the vote. It is a representation of the whole country's government.

So again, whose "voting privilidges" are you talking about?

Quote:

At square one in the accepted justice system, motive is factored in heavily. The case will be formulated based on facts--but to discount such a motive is disengenuous.

So feel free to show the motive. You have not done so at all.

Quote:

If it is discovered that the judge or jury has been bribed--they instantly lose credibility and legitimacy in the matter.

That's nice, but nothing of that sort is even alleged, much less "discovered".

If you want to allege it do so. I will then address your contention.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Motive in criminal cases is a strong determining factor, in ascertaining the probability of guilt.

As Timber said, Such finding (that SC members with voting privileges, received exhorbitant sums 'bribes' through the OFF program) however, certainly would invalidate much claim to legitimacy of intent posed by those who were in opposition to The US

But France - for example - had many immediately discernable motives for staking out the position it did - of many different kinds.

Some had to do with France's traditional views on US hegemony in international politics. Some had to do with French national politics - Chirac scoring with (or, if you put it benevolently: expressing the will of) the electorate, which was heavily against the war. Some actually had to do with what Chirac's government considered right for Iraq.

What you do by adding the OFF corruption into that equation is just adding one more possible motivation - not in itself proving that that was THE decisive motivation. Coulda just as easily be one of the others (democratic governments are supposed to represent the will of their populations, for example). Or a mix of 'em all.

Sofia wrote:

, and by extension, call to question the overall legitimacy of The UN, as a body, itself

How does that work?

In a way, your reasoning here mirrors that of those who keep going on about Halliburton, Cheney and Iraq.

Some fishy business has been uncovered about Halliburton's business with the government concerning Iraq. Halliburton apparently derived substantial financial profit in unjust ways from the position its been granted in Iraq.

One could, if so inclined, reason that such business suggests a motivation for the Iraq intervention - just like you reason that the OFF corruption suggests a motivation for other countries' opposition to that intervention.

(Personally, I think both would at most have figured as some sidebar to those decisions.)

But when one then concludes that
a) the existence of such fishy Halliburton business and
b) the hypothetical (or to those so partisanly inclined, "probable") possibility that such business might have influenced the government's decision-making on this one score
c) "by extension" calls into question the legitimacy of the US Administration, overall ... one would just be being silly, no?

Same here.

You have
a) a proven corruption case in one UN program
b) that can be hypothesized as influencing the UN vote on one specific issue
c) which we are to see that, in turn, as "call[ing] to question the overall legitimacy of The UN"?

Bit of an overreach, no? Imho, anyway.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Sofia wrote:

SC members with voting privileges, received exhorbitant sums 'bribes' through the OFF program

Support this. Sofia, who the hell do you think has "voting privilidges"?
I supported it on the last two pages. The SC is the voting body I refer to.
France is a feekin democracy whose people were very much opposed to it.
No one said France voted against the war solely because of the OFF program. But, because relatives and associates of Chirac are alleged to have received bribes, who's to know? Receiving bribes does undercut your legitimacy.Some diplomat who is corrupt does not get to decide on the vote. It is a representation of the whole country's government.
Really? No official representative never went against the majority in their country? Is there a rule at the UN that a SC member must vote to represent the majority of their citizens?
So again, whose "voting privilidges" are you talking about?
The SC...
Quote:
At square one in the accepted justice system, motive is factored in heavily. The case will be formulated based on facts--but to discount such a motive is disengenuous.

So feel free to show the motive. You have not done so at all.
I have shown it more than a couple of times. Pay off.
Quote:
If it is discovered that the judge or jury has been bribed--they instantly lose credibility and legitimacy in the matter.

That's nice, but nothing of that sort is even alleged, much less "discovered".
It has been alleged in my postings on this thread, and in the articles.
If you want to allege it do so. I will then address your contention.

To recap, I allege it.

0 Replies

nimh--

I agree with your take on France. I didn't allege that the whole thing was absolutely driven by profits from OFF. I said in light of this news, we can't continue to consider the UN as an honest player in the Iraq vote. The corruption and probable links to Russia, France and others stripped the vote of legitimacy, IMO, and in the opinion of several news orgs and many people.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know