THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Sofia wrote:

Receiving bribes does undercut your legitimacy.

Hhmmmm ... now you have me pondering the difference between "undercut" and "invalidate", which was the word you used in your previous post.

If you mean "undercut" as "cast doubts on" or whatever - well sure, it adds an element of suspicion about what motivations might all have been involved in (for example) France's decision.

But "invalidates" the claim to legitimacy of intent of those who were in opposition to the US on the SC - well, why? Even if the corruption might have played some kind of role in the stand of this or that country (which remains a hypothesis), that still doesnt mean they didnt have loads of other, legit reasons to oppose the US as well.

Oh, it also deserves observing here that on the SC, a whole range of countries refused to support the US stand on Iraq. Not just Germany and France and Russia and China, but also most of the "smaller" rotating members of the SC refused to announce their support for the resolution the US was pressing for - only Spain and Bulgaria did so. Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico, Pakistan, Syria all said err, no - we prefer a resolution that insists on more time for the weapon inspectors.

How many of these countries - France, Russia, China, Germany, Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico, Pakistan, Syria - profited from the OFF corruption? How many of their objections are "invalidated", re: legitimate intent, by the hypothesis of the influence of OFF bribes?

0 Replies

nimh--

Not that I'm distancing myself from him in the overall meaning of his posts, but 'invalidate' was Timber's word. I used a couple of his lines.

I try to choose my words carefully, and the point I was making was NOT that the final decision was COMPLETELY owing to the OFF profits--but that if it changed one vote--the UN re Iraq was perverted by the profits. And, additionally, the entire process should be reviewed in light of who got what. Finally, that the veracity of ALL who recieved OFF profits is ruined.

0 Replies

nimh---and Timber--

I see why I used it. He said "invalidate much claim to legitimacy".

You use it as though he (and I by extension) said it invalidated their votes.

0 Replies

Not really up-to-speed here ... unexpectedly had to go do some unpleasant real world stuff, and now I'm about ready to call it a night. Anyhow, Cdk, I made no assertion regarding or reference to the voting populaces of the nations involved; my comments and observations related only to their UN representatives. I have no quarrell there was a general, broadbased popular opposition to "The War" on the part of European "Folks in the Street". Certainly, in that regard, it may be said their UN representatives voted the will of their constituancy. Nonetheless, I feel Britain, Spain and Italy as notable exceptions voted principle over popular sentiment. I think that more or less validates my point, but at the moment I'm too tired to elaborate. Please allow it to suffice that I say, by the evidence as it appears to me, that there is strong reason to suspect pecuniary motive in the voting stance of several key opponents to The US in the matter.

CdK, as far as I'm aware, and admittedly I'm not omniscient, there is no credible challenge to the document on which the Al-Madi article is based, and numerous independent investigations , enploying different documentation and testimony, bear out the allegations raised by the Al-Madi article. I do have a preference, no doubt colored by personal preconception, but I'm not only willing but eager to see the results of the various investigations. If my assumptions be proven wrong, so be it ... I can always admit that I was wrong. I believe financial considerations, if not outright corruption (which I strongly suspect, but which is yet to be proven one way or the other), influenced, or at the very least tainted, the votes of some Security Council members. I would prefer, in fact, that my assumptions not be borne out. I do not expect that will be the case. Mebbe I'll have a different opinion in the morning. I doubt that, though.

G'night all. Drive safely.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

nimh---and Timber--

I see why I used it. He said "invalidate much claim to legitimacy".

You use it as though he (and I by extension) said it invalidated their votes.

Not quite sure what you mean here. (They didn't get to vote, did they?)

The "culpability on the part of senior UN Member State officials" - if and once proven - "would invalidate much claim to legitimacy of intent posed by those who were in opposition to The US", is what Timber wrote.

I took that to mean that the findings on the bribes would show that "much" of the intent that "those who opposed the US" purported to be acting on, was in fact a fraud. That they wouldnt be able anymore to legitimately claim that the intent of their opposition to the US really was what they said it was.

There's several assumptions in that statement, imho:
a) the hypothesis that the question of OFF bribes - if senior UN Member State officials are indeed found culpable - might have influenced the voting intention of those countries that allegedly received them
b) the hypothesis that this influence was in any way overriding or predominant, relative to other motivations those countries had to oppose the US
c) the generalisation that shifts the focus from the countries that allegedly received the bribes to "those who were in opposition to The US", period.

These are the points I tried to tackle.

First off, as Cravens been pointing out, said influence is merely a hypothesis.

Second off, considering that the countries in question (example: France) would have some sincere and heavy-weighing reasons to oppose the US-proposed course of action in any case, how would the additional influence this issue might have had "invalidate" their claim to a legitimate intent in opposing the US?

I mean, if you agree that they had such motivations in any case - whether it be the state's conflicting vision on international politics or the responsibility to not violate the will of the overwhelming majority of one's population or whatever - then those would still stand, OFF issues or not, right?

As long as you cannot make a convincing case that all such supposed motivations were mere smokescreens for the "real" motivation posed by the OFF bribes, then the additional motivation hypothetically posed by those bribes does not "invalidate" the legitimate intent involved in those other motivations at all. At most, they muddle the question - but those other intents still remain unchanged.

Third, even if the OFF bribes had an effect, they would only have had it on the countries that allegedly received them - whereas "those who were in opposition to The US" - even if we only look at the SC - encompassed quite a few others too.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Quote:
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.

Sofia, the "SC" is a group of nations that are represented by diplomats.

Individuals diplomats and employees associated in this venue do not have the decision to vote.

The total figures in the EFF that we are talking about are billions but the skimming would involve a lot less. Individuals could pocket a fat amount for themselves but there's not enough to make it really sweet for a whole nation.

Quote:

Quote:
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?

I was very careful not to say that the vote had to be representative of the majority of the citizens. I said it was representative of their governments.

Saddam's government, for example, demonstrated no such quality.

Quote:

Is there a rule at the UN that a SC member must vote to represent the majority of their citizens?

No. But countries don't tend to send diplomats who will vote on their personal preference in opposition to the wishes of the nation's government.

The United Nations are a colective of nations and the decisions are not up to individual diplomats.

Quote:

I have shown it more than a couple of times. Pay off.

Ok, payoff for whom? Lets see if you can demonstrate the existence of one example where a payoff motivated a government to vote a certain way.

I can name a few good cases, but it was outside of the EFF program and we knew about it long before the war and offered "consideration" of these circumstances.

Those were cases of illegal pipelines to neighbours like Syria. Their economy would be threatened and while doing the rounds of global diplomacy we offered them, turkey and other neighbours assurances that we would help them weather the effect of the war we wanted support for.

But if you have EFF examples to cite that influenced the other SC nations, please bring them to the table.

Quote:

To recap, I allege it.

Ok, show your cards, let's see it. If an EFF instance of individual corruption has a connection to a nation's position on the SC resolutions please show us.

Some nations had nation-wide interests and could not be pursuaded to join us in support for war despite reassurances that we would recognize their "concerns" in Iraq.

So if you want to allege that smaller amounts of money for personal interest was responsible for such a vast array of nations being against the war I am all ears (can't accuse me of ignoring you on this this time ;-) ).

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

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
I allege that this money found its way into the pockets of Putin, and others. I also allege that Putin ensured a vote against the Iraq war because he was bought off. I also allege this is why Putin came out in opposition to the investigation into OFF. This is enough money to spread around the government and groups, to incite the public to view the Iraq war more negatively than they may have without such a campaign.

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
I would bet my left ass cheek that the same happened here. Chirac is closely associated with Merimee, and I have no doubt Chirac profitted personally from this bit of graft. True, French citizens would probably have been against the war no matter what. But, the vote was supposed to address Saddam's non-compliance with UN resolutions. As you agreed, the UN diplomat casting the vote is not tied to the will of the majority of their citizens--but follow the wishes of the country's leaders.

Your reasoning here is quite shaky, to me. In a criminal case with a judge, and a jury--If the jury is tampered with--if a juror is paid a bribe--there is no debate on whether the juror MAY have voted to acquit ANYWAY. The case is thrown out.

Based on the information we have thus far, I say it is highly likely the 'jury' was bribed. Defending their tainted acquittal of Saddam is curious, to me.

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

Galloway's loud attacks against Blair and Bush and the war are a matter of public record. His behavior is consistent with one, who was paid off and worked hard toward Saddam's purposes

The investigation is not final, so I am alleging--but you seem (or was it nimh) to be squaring for a defense of the vote, whether or not my suppositions are true. If these sums do prove to be accurate, and if we do link the money to Putin, Chirac, Megawati, Galloway and others--do you still defend their votes--their representatives' votes? Galloway's vitriolic attacks against Blair re his war stance?

Trying to find info on Ibex-- 47 mil--quite a sum...

0 Replies

Mr. Maugein, a billionaire with close ties to Jacques Chirac, is a longtime associate of the trader and former fugitive Marc Rich, who fled to Europe in 1983 to avoid answering charges of racketeering, illegal trading and dodging a tax-bill of $48 million. (Mr. Rich was pardoned by Bill Clinton in his final hours in the White House). Mr. Maugein was also a close contact of Tariq Aziz, with whom he met regularly. He is the non-executive chairman of Soco International PLC, a publicly listed London-based petroleum exploration/production company, which goes into markets the majors tend to skip--Mongolia, Vietnam, North Korea, Libya and Yemen.

Messrs. Maugein and Rui de Sousa acquired their interest in Soco through an entity called Torobex, whose shares were held by Tobex Holdings Ltd. According to Al Mada, Mr. Maugein allegedly received 25 million barrels of Iraqi crude allocations. Mr. de Sousa is also on the allocation list, down for 11 million barrels.

In a statement provided to the Journal, Mr. Maugein says "there is no truth whatever" to any allegation of impropriety and that his dealings in Iraq "were conducted in a perfectly legal manner and in strict accordance" with U.N. rules. His dealings in Iraq, he suggests, were through his 10% stake in Italiana Energia e Servizi, a Mantua-based oil refinery, which is majority-owned by Mario Contini and purchased crude from Iraq under Oil-for-Food.

On the Al Mada list, Mr. Maugein's name appears next to the name of Dutch-based oil trading company Trafigura (Beheer BV), which has the bulk of its operations in London. In his statement, Mr. Maugein says that "Trafigura's activities in Iraq are completely independent of that of Mr. Maugein and there is no connection at all between Mr. Maugein and the incident in 2001 involving Trafigura." The incident is the Essex oil smuggling scandal, on which the Journal carried an investigative story in May 2002. In a smuggling practice known as top-loading, 1.8 million barrels approved for sale under a U.N. contract was topped off with an additional 272,000 barrels in the summer of 2001, according to the captain of the Essex oil-tanker, who blew the whistle on the smuggling by advising U.S. and U.N. authorities. It was the second time in less than four months that the Essex had been chartered to carry top-loaded crude.

Trafigura purchased the oil from oil equipment supplier Ibex Energy France, which in turn bought it from SOMO in Iraq. Ibex said the scheme had been cooked up by Trafigura; Trafigura claimed Ibex fooled it into believing that it had U.N. permission to purchase all of the oil. A French government investigation into Ibex's involvement in the Essex incident appears to have been dropped in late 2002. Ibex was struck from the U.N.'s list of approved companies to deal in Iraq after the Essex incident and the Security Council's 661 Sanctions Committee, responsible for overseeing oil-for-food, asked eight governments (including the U.S., France, the U.K. and the Netherlands) to investigate, but had not heard back by the time oil-for-food was shut down last November.

Ibex's rise from modest beginnings as a regional company with non-oil commercial dealings to a major petroleum broker is something of a mystery. Its office is at 77 boulevard Champs Elysee in Paris. The building's concierge told us that Ibex and Toro occupy the same penthouse office. A receptionist readily fielded inquiries about both companies, though referred questions on Toro to Mr. de Sousa in Monaco.

"I don't share an office with Ibex. I have nothing to do with them and neither does Mr. Maugein," said Mr. de Sousa in a phone interview. "We know Ibex as we know Shell [Oil]. So they gave you my number. Don't you have the number of the Daily Mail?"
-------
Doesn't look good for Chirac... Why did they drop the investigation???

0 Replies

This story just keeps getting more and more convincing to me. Good luck Sofia! There are some older opinions (from some of the usual suspects :wink: ) of it on the link below if you're interested.

Old Story, may have some teeth after all! Check this out!

0 Replies

Considering the Rich involvement, and Clinton's odd pardon--wonder if Bubba scored, as well?

0 Replies

Boy, that does make that pardon look that much more interesting, doesn't it.

0 Replies

Thanks, Bill. I don't think I'll be walking away with any awards from this locale. I'll peek in on your link.

I'm satisfied to wait for the investigation...unless it is stymied by Dirty Hands, like the French investigation into Ibex seems to have been.

<broil>

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

... Trying to find info on Ibex-- 47 mil--quite a sum...

That would be IBEX Energy France, a French firm that began as a petroleum exploration, transport, and handling materials and equipment supplier. Not publicly traded, IBEX Energy France is a wholly owned subsidiary of London-based SOCO International PLC, a publicly traded firm in which Maugein has significant holdings, and on who's board he sits as "Director of Alternative Finance". Shortly after the UNSCR 661 sanctions came into effect, IBEX became heavily involved in oil brokering ... trading contracts both involving Oil For Food Contracts and unrelated General Market contracts. In late '02, IBEX was formally excluded from participation in the Oil For Food program as a result actions taken following an investigation into improprieties by Essex Petroleum, a firm which has been at the center of numerous scandals of various sorts for around 30 years. Just to pique your interest, Sofia, a gentleman named Marc Rich (yes, that Marc Rich ... the convicted swindler relieved of fugitive status when pardoned in the waning minutes of The Previous Administration) is another major shareholder, and boardmember, of SOCO International. Another of SOCO International PLC's board members and significant shareholders is Mr. Galloway.

EDIT TO ADD (timber): I see you're on the right track, Sofia. I was late posting this ... shoulda been watching the thread closer.

0 Replies

Makes Halliburton look like a tea party.

0 Replies

Sigh, ok, well you folk "allege" a whole lot, all without anything to back it up.

So feel free to believe in your conspiracy theory, even as far as Clinton eh?

It takes all sorts. Let me know if you ever get any substantiation for your wild claims.

0 Replies

Craven, you have to admit the "Rich" pardon list was bizarre, to say the least.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

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".

In my lexicon one lies when one says something one knows or believes is probably untrue.
www.m-w.com

Quote:

Main Entry: 3 lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing /'lI-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavonic lugati
intransitive senses
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression

I have not and will not lie in this or any other forum. I have been assuming and do now continue to assume the same is true for you.

I have too many times misinterpreted the meaning of some posts and made incorrect inferences from those misinterpetations. However, I believe writers of those posts (including you and me) have occassionally incorrectly stated their own positions and wrote statements implying other than what they intended to imply. I perceive this to be as true of you as it is of me.

I claim the Bush Administration did not act unlawfully when they decided to invade and did invade Iraq. They did not violate any domestic or international laws. They did not violate any treaties to which the US is a signatory. And, they did exactly what they sincerely thought was the right thing to do.

I am now confused about what your position is on this.

Craven de Kere wrote:

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.

I am arguing that while that motivation you write of probably existed, the decision to invade Iraq was made as a consequence of 9/11 and not made exclusively as a consequence of that prior motivation. I suppose one could argue that 9/11 appeared to some in Bush's administration to be the proverbial "last straw." One can even argue that the motivation of some prior to 9/11 was so strong as to appear irresistable. Even so, I have not encountered any evidence from you or anyone else that Bush did not decide to make and did not actually make the decision to invade Iraq until well after 9/11. I bet the reason for the delay was Bush's delay in recognizing that the invasion of Afghanistan was not going to turn out to be sufficient for eradicating Osama's and his Al Qaeda's threat to the security of "Americans everywhere." Whatever Bush's actual reason for delay, he did delay his decision and did not actually decide to invade Iraq until well after 9/11.

It is my opinion that concern over when Bush actually made his decision is inconsequential if Bush's decision turns out to be the right decision. Whether Bush stumbled into the right decision after long cogitation, or through prescience, anticipated shortly after the Gulf War Armistice that Saddam would eventually have to be removed to secure the safety of Americans is a subject for future mind reading historians. The most pressing question now is: did Bush do the right thing?

I say again:

If you or anyone else wishes 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

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Craven, you have to admit the "Rich" pardon list was bizarre, to say the least.

'

Sure, it means Clinton was on Saddam's payroll. Rolling Eyes

You folk have a really transparent desire to write off dissenting opinions as corrupt. I'll not get in your way as long as it is clear that it's just **** flingin'.

When someone claims their concpiracy theory has substantiation, then I'll address it. But it'd be foolish for me to get in the way of the wacky conspiracy theory ureg y'all have.

0 Replies

Let me know if you ever get any substantiation for your wild claims, said Craven--

-----------------
Count on it!

But, would you do me the courtesy of answering this question?

If these sums do prove to be accurate, and if we do link the money to Putin, Chirac, Megawati, Galloway and others--do you still defend their votes--their representatives' votes? Galloway's vitriolic attacks against Blair re his war stance?
Or would you call their actions/votes/ representatives votes into question due to conflict of interest?

0 Replies

Damn.

Craven, most people thought the pardon of Rich (and a few others) was horrible, pre-OFF scandal.
Did you?

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know