THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

You can go back there if you wish Geli, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the UN OFF scandal. However, in contrast, the Savings & Loan scandal was investigated by both Dems and Republicans, many were indicted, fined and/or jailed and many many debts were forgiven for a few cents on the dollar by the Clinton administration conducting the investigation. Hands on both sides of the aisle were dirty on that one and honorable people from both sides were anxious to get to the bottom of it.

Now compare that to the investigation going on re the OFF scandal and you'll see there is no comparison at all.

So far as the U.S. involvement in any 'fishy' or incompetent management of funds, you can be 100% sure that George Bush has enough rabid enemies among the loyal opposition to force a full investigation there. For now there is only what you read in the papers and that is 99% speculation.

gg : you know what they say, 'well, this is a different ballgame', and 'that was then, and this is now' . it's a little bit like trying to pin the tail on the donkey; there is usually a lot of fog around .... hbg

Exactly. And if there is anything wrong, the Bush administration has enough enemies in the loyal opposition and the predominently left leaning media that somebody will get to the bottom of it. As so far there is nothing to go on but innuendo and speculation, we are in a wait and see mode re any U.S. wrongdoing. There is quite a bit of direct testimony and other evidence at this time to implicate members of the U.N. as being 'on the take' in the OFF scandal.

Yeah, terrorists are bad, bad people ... and bite us in the ass later, creating other, more serious threats to our interests.

Billions are allegedly disappearing. There are people in authority, both Iraqi and American, who so far are denying those allegations that have yet to be proved. It has been proved that many millions (billions?) in OFF funds were diverted from food, shelter, and medicine intended for the Iraqi people and humanitarian groups are saying this has contributed to tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of Iraqi deaths during the 10-year sanctions.

gg : i was just trying to give an opinion from past experience. i worked for a large insurance company for more than thirty years. whenever some problem came up and a scapegoat was being looked for, we sometimes used to say (or more likely whisper) : 'remember when the president came up with some 'splendid' idea and the plan went haywire ? '. the answer given to those lower on the totempole was more more often not that of the kind i showed earlier. another good excuse is always : 'well, the circumstances chanded. i didn't realize we would into that kind of trouble'. wasting or misappropriating money is not exclusively reserved for any particular group/party ; everyone can get into the game ... and the taxpayer will pay. hbg

You're saying the 'viscious attacks' on the UN's handing of the OFF program are manufactured McTag? Are you saying there was nothing fishy about any of that? That the UN has done a good job with that?

As the UN has refused to allow any investigation other than internal, it is unlikely we'll ever know the whole story there. But there is already enough testimony and evidence, reported even by friends of the UN, to convince most people that the UN is not competent or trustworthy to manage something like that.

So far as the U.S. involvement in any 'fishy' or incompetent management of funds, you can be 100% sure that George Bush has enough rabid enemies among the loyal opposition to force a full investigation there. For now there is only what you read in the papers and that is 99% speculation.

Yesterday's appearances were organized by the Democratic Policy Committee. Its chairman, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), said the witnesses were called in response to a recent report by the inspector general for Iraqi reconstruction that concluded that the governing authority had inadequate controls over $8.8 billion in Iraqi funds it was supposed to oversee. Former administrator L. Paul Bremer has denied those allegations. Dorgan said Democrats had attempted to get Republican colleagues to hold hearings on the issue but were unsuccessful

No, no WMD's in no way indicates fraud. Practically speaking, however, if we had not believed Saddam had WMD's, we almost certainly would not have invaded Iraq, the sanctions would have been continued via UN orders, and tens (hundreds?) of thousands more Iraqi people, mostly children, would have died.

No, no WMD's in no way indicates fraud. Practically speaking, however, if we had not believed Saddam had WMD's, we almost certainly would not have invaded Iraq, the sanctions would have been continued via UN orders, and tens (hundreds?) of thousands more Iraqi people, mostly children, would have died.

I didn't bring up the WMD's Geli. You did. I only responded to your statement.

We stopped in Vietnam when the administration finally caved into the bleeding heart liberals and left tens of thousands of allies behind to be slaughtered by the enemy we had fought for a decade. You suggest we should do the same in Iraq?

Has it ever occurred to any of you WHY Saddam thwarted the UN inspectors for so long? There are two probable scenarios. 1) the WMD's were there and were moved during the long weeks our president tried to go through UN channels and/or 2) the WMDs weren't there but Saddam wanted us to believe they were there so the UN sanctions would be kept on. Those sanctions were so very profitable for him and apparently for those he was in collaboration with. Meanwhile Iraqi children died from lack of medicine or lack of food.

Yeah that was better right? Not.

ican, what your review fails to take into account is:
1. Al Qaeda are still operating in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Iraq, as a matter of fact, al Qaeda has swelled to numbers that far exceed those that were ever there before our invasion. Our invasions didn't destroy al Qaeda in either country. We killed some of them there, but they remain in both countries. The destruction of bases, like how you point out Clinton's air strikes in Afghanistan, has been irrelevant.
[Your review of my review fails to take into account a very simple truth: "it ain't over 'till it's over." Yes we have not finished the destruction of all al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan and Iraq. That's a work in progress. And yes we have not finished the extermination of all al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq. That too is a work in progress. I expect the governments of democratic Afghanistan and Iraq will have to continue that work in progress for some time after they ask us to leave and we leave. I also expect those governments to reduce the al Qaeda problem to a manageable level roughly equivalent to containing and then destroying any other organized crime organization. All it takes is resolve and time, lots of time.

The argument that our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq causes an increase in al Qaeda is stupid. That's equivalent to claiming resisting a bully only serves to increase the number of those who bully. The al Qaeda immigrating into Afghanistan and Iraq are there for one reason. They are attempting to retain and/or increase their worldwide power to bully. They realize that if they lose that power in Afghanistan and Iraq, their appeal to new recruits will be sharply reduced.

Oh, by the way, our ground invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq destroyed more al Qaeda bases (including so-called al Qaeda safe-houses) and exterminated more al Qaeda than did any of our air strikes in those countries.]

2. There are more al Qaeda in Iraq than before our invasion, and the steady growth in their terrorism indicates that the aid, both actual and perceived, from Afghanistan and Iraq, has been irrelevant to their cause.
[True that they are probably more in these countries; untrue about what that shows. What it actually shows is the al Qaeda leadership are desperate and are willing to bring in their entire membership if they think it necessary to prevent the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq from evolving democracies of their own design. I'd like to see all al Qaeda concentrated in one place. That will make al Qaeda much easier to exterminate from the face of the earth.]
As to your conclusion, you fail to take into account al Qaeda that is operating in democratic countries. Our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have had no bearing on al Qaeda in those countries, in fact it has made things worse in those countries (e.g. Spain).
[That is a falsity. I did take this into account when I wrote that exterminating al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq would benefit these democracies too. It would accomplish that two ways. First, it will become harder for al Qaeda to recruit when they are reduced to the level of organized crime in Afghanistan and Iraq. Second, many of the al Qaeda in these countries will immigrate to Afghanistan and Iraq to attempt to stem the tide of their extermination.]

So what if my statement ignores the terrorism perpetrated against thousands of Iraqi civilians by their non-democratic government before our invasion and occupation of Iraq, ican. It isn't relevant to my statement that your response didn't address the issue of the terrorism the US is inciting through its occupation of Iraq.
[As I said above that is a stupid assertion. We don't incite terrorists by resisting them. We are not inciting terrorist. Terrorists are inciting terrorism. All they have to do is stop mass murdering civilians and turn to honorable work for a living. There are a great many employment opportunities in the reconstruction of various infrastructures.]

The terrorists in Iraq are waging what they call a war against democracy because of what they perceive democracy to mean: a proxy government set up by the US, for the US at the expense of Iraqis. It is the probable evolution of that kind of "democracy" in Iraq (think, the Philippines) that incites the terrorism in Iraq, along with our occupation thereof which is but a means to that end.
[Bunkum Slop! The Al Qaeda confederation increased rapidly throughout the world after we gave up our chance to apprehend bin Laden, after bin Laden moved from the Sudan to Afghanistan, and before we invaded Afganistan. What incites terrorism are terrorists and the tyrants that support them.]

These Iraqis terrorizing Iraqi civilians are largely those who fear being dispossessed and disenfranchised by the kind of democracy described above.
[You are almost correct. These Iraqis terrorizing Iraqi civilians are largely those who were dispossessed and disenfranchised of the tyrannical power they once possessed, by the effort to evolve democracies of the people's own design.]

Quote:

I suggest you go back and read what happened during and after the evacuation of Saigon Geli. Were you alive then? Did you know people who were there then? I was and did. And I have read the history. Of all the very limited parallels between Vietnam and Iraq, the most glaring would be the results of premature withdrawal of American forces. If you cannot see that, there is no reason to continue this discussion.

And if you cannot acknowledge the proven history of the hundreds of thousands--by some estimates millions--of dead Iraqis by the hand/order/intentional neglect of Saddam Hussein, then there is no reason to continue this discussion.