HofT wrote:JTT wrote:"... the UN Oil For Food programme, by which Iraq was allowed to sell heavily discounted oil to raise money for food and humanitarian supplies.
Why were the riches of Iraq being stolen from the people of Iraq? Why would Iraq's oil have to be "heavily discounted"? Who was responsible for such a policy? This is nothing more than outright theft.
___________________________________________________________
As I've been away from this thread for quite a while I glanced at some early pages and found the above pearl on page 8.
It's hard to know where to start when faced with such abysmal ignorance so perhaps starting at the beginning might help:
1. The
"market" price was unavailable to Saddam because there was an
embargo in force.
2. Oil could however be sold
at a discount under supervision of the UN in order to buy food.
3. That
was the
"oil for food" program.
OK so far?
Does the above address the confused remarks on "outright theft", or is it also necessary to explain why he couldn't sell
above market price?!
So, HofT, you old eagle-eye, you zeroed in on that one little remark and you thought it so vitally important.
But you glossed over THIS!
Quote:
In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.
"The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.
AND THIS !!
Quote:
Yesterday's report makes two principal allegations against the Bush administration. Firstly, it found the US treasury failed to take action against a Texas oil company, Bayoil, which facilitated payment of "at least $37m in illegal surcharges to the Hussein regime".
In its second main finding, the report said the US military and the state department gave a tacit green light for shipments of nearly 8m barrels of oil bought by Jordan, a vital American ally, entirely outside the UN-monitored Oil For Food system. Jordan was permitted to buy some oil directly under strict conditions but these purchases appeared to be under the counter.
Oil is hardly a commodity that sits waiting for buyers. There was an embargo on. Tell me something I don't know, HofT. The "oil for food" program was set up to allow some oil to be sold. Tell me something I don't know.
As I stated, why should that oil have to have been heavily discounted. If the intent was to help the people of Iraq, why should such an in-demand commodity have to be "heavily discounted"?
Do you figure that the people who bought it discounted it all the way down the line. I didn't notice any gas stations that were selling gasoline at "heavily discounted" prices, did you, HofT?
It isn't at all unreasonable to think that there was some skulduggery involved. These people in the oil business aren't renowned for being Mother Teresa types.
"Discounted", now I can buy that, but why "heavily discounted". It would be really interesting to know who actually profited from this "sale to help the Iraqi people" and how much they profited.
But that you should focus on this little aside when there were so many more important issues; illegal kickbacks, connivance going on at the highest levels of government, astonishes me, ... , ... no, I take that back, it doesn't astonish me. I had had the impression that you focused on the important points.
Obviously, I was mistaken.
] that you mention, Whooda, are verb forms meaning, "to engage in sexual intercourse". That's NONE! And in all five instances, the grammar was perfect, albeit colorful.
emoticons, colors, and font variations.)
