Just Wonders wrote
Quote:Blatham - try sticking to the subject at hand.
Really?
1) You described Annan as 'a thief'.
2) I asked for your evidence Annan had personally profited from illegal transactions.
3) You posted an item that didn't provide any evidence for your specific charge.
4) I noted that you had not.
Quote:Sure there's fraud to be found everywhere if one looks hard enough
Really? Your own business and personal dealings with your grandmother, if investigated, would demonstrate fraud?
Quote: If you want to believe that there's no proof that Saddam (and certain others) stole millions from the Oil for Food Scam while Annan and his corrupt UN bunch looked the other way, fine.
Sadaam apparently did steal millions. Some personnel at the UN, including the Security Council, quite possibly did gain personally and illegally. Nowhere have I claimed otherwise.
Quote:If nothing else, Annan is guilty by implication of the very fact that he's doing everything in his power to obstruct a valid investigation.
"Everything in his power"? Really? Thus guilty by implication? Paul Volcker also finds that Ernst and Young are not forthcoming with requested documents and evidence. Therefore, Ernst and Young stand equally guilty.
The imprecision of your language is evidence of your intellectual laziness. The logically-unwarranted conclusions and inconsistencies at which you arrive are why you are not worth talking to.
