How the UN, France, and Russia bribed Saddam

Rudey · #1 03-29-2004, 12:48 PM

How do people feel that Kofi Annan's son Kojo was on the payroll for the company that monitored goods sent to Iraq?

How do people feel that there was a markup to allow for kickbacks of 10% on these prices?

How do people feel that often the goods were expired (bad food and medicines)?

How do people feel that the money flowed through the French and Russians (more kickbacks) before getting to Saddam?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/29/opinion/29SAFI.html

-Rudey
--Good read

Coramoor · #2 03-29-2004, 12:57 PM

I can't wait to see the UN's and France's repsonse. It'll be interesting without a doubt.

DeltAlum · #3 03-29-2004, 01:18 PM

I believe Annan has begun an "official" UN investigation of the kickbacks. Be interesting if his son's name shows up as a bad guy.

Maybe that's why France and Russia dragged their feet on getting rid of Sadaam.

Rudey · #4 03-29-2004, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
I believe Annan has begun an "official" UN investigation of the kickbacks. Be interesting if his son's name shows up as a bad guy.

Maybe that's why France and Russia dragged their feet on getting rid of Sadaam.

Did you honestly think there was another reason why they didn't?

-Rudey

kappaloo · #5 03-29-2004, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rudey
Did you honestly think there was another reason why they didn't?

-Rudey

I always have gone with Populist support.... supporting the war would have been a quick ticket out of office for the French (and maybe the Russians, I don't know).

PhiPsiRuss · #6 03-29-2004, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Maybe that's why France and Russia dragged their feet on getting rid of Sadaam.

Chirac has been personally involved in Iraqi oil for 30 years. This little piece of trivia has been conveniently overlooked by the French media, as they labled the US as monsters. Even if the whole subject of WMD never was mentioned, intervention in Iraq was completely justifiable, but the French and Russians would never have gone along with it because of the oil.

The reason why France refused to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1441 was because of the oil. Genocide wasn't so bad, as long as they got their oil. Vichy France lives. Fü¢% the French. They allowed the UN to be completely undermined, and backed the US and UK into a corner, not for principle, but for oil.

Rudey · #7 03-29-2004, 05:00 PM

Benon Sevon, the man in charge of the oil-for-food program, bought oil for way below market price and reaped a great profit. His name is on a list of 270 such "businessmen" who were corruptly profiting. Additionally, Sevon was an undercover agent for France (no big splash about the UN being infiltrated by the French intelligence it seems).

The troubles go farther. "Iraq, with U.N. approval, kept Americans, Britons and Scandinavians off the staff that administered the 13 percent of the oil-for-food proceeds earmarked for Kurdish provinces." Why do people criticise the US for not allowing these blood countries to gain contracts after essentially enslaving Iraqis?

Perhaps we should look further. The UN was filled with capacity with spies. A Tunisian U.N. employee with a car full of explosives meant for a terror bombing in Erbil was arrested in July of 2001. 4 months later the UN was able to quietly negotiate his release.

-Rudey

DeltAlum · #8 03-30-2004, 11:32 AM

A couple of thoughts.

First, every country, including ours, has used diplomatic cover for spies for many years. So, it 's not a surprize that the UN is full of them. "Diplomatic Immunity" covers a lot of sins.

Chirac not withstanding, huge numbers of people in countries all over the world apparantely were against this particular military action.

Despite the outstanding job our military did in the actual fighting itself, I still believe that the timing and alleged reasoning for this one was ill advised.

We now need to commit to the long term in rebuilding Iraq, and as has become obvious, it will be painful.

Rudey · #9 03-30-2004, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
A couple of thoughts.

First, every country, including ours, has used diplomatic cover for spies for many years. So, it 's not a surprize that the UN is full of them. "Diplomatic Immunity" covers a lot of sins.

Chirac not withstanding, huge numbers of people in countries all over the world apparantely were against this particular military action.

Despite the outstanding job our military did in the actual fighting itself, I still believe that the timing and alleged reasoning for this one was ill advised.

We now need to commit to the long term in rebuilding Iraq, and as has become obvious, it will be painful.

Yes except perhaps you have forgotten how much of a media mess they made when they found out that the US and Britain were listening in on UN officials talk about the Iraq war. Why haven't they made the same mess here?

And while people may be against the war, they simply are against the US. They let the UN off the hook and countries like Russia and France are angels evidently. What jokes...what crocks.

-Rudey

DeltAlum · #10 03-30-2004, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rudey
Yes except perhaps you have forgotten how much of a media mess they made when they found out that the US and Britain were listening in on UN officials talk about the Iraq war. Why haven't they made the same mess here?

Ah, the day (meaning this particular revelation) is still young. I'm sure it will get uglier.

PhiPsiRuss · #11 03-30-2004, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Ah, the day (meaning this particular revelation) is still young. I'm sure it will get uglier.

And it will be blamed on George Bush.

Rudey · #12 03-30-2004, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Ah, the day (meaning this particular revelation) is still young. I'm sure it will get uglier.

You obviously have rose colored sunglasses. I thought with your age and experience, that would not be so. Here is what will happen.

1) Nothing. No further mention in the news.

2) Possibly a slap on the wrist with a reuters and ap article somewhere out there on this.

3) Kofi Annan, Charac, LLC will use a variation of this classic phrase to sum it up, "That is not the issue here; the issue here is that Bush and American are wrong and lied to start this war in Iraq." Someone can be talking about the weather and Charac would reply with that phrase.

-Rudey

DeltAlum · #13 03-30-2004, 11:29 PM

We shall see.

Rudey · #14 04-21-2004, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
We shall see.

They're saying there is heavy momentum against any investigation - including by the US. The US wants the UN in Iraq so they're overlooking quite a bit.

Oil for Terror: http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0404182336.asp

Scandal with no Friends:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/19/opinion/19SAFI.html

Look at these crooks - these dirty people who look down on Americans because we weren't mindful of the damage that might be caused to their illegal operations.

-Rudey

moe.ron · #15 04-21-2004, 11:23 AM

Something to consider, for the UN side of the Oil for Food Program, any contracts by the UN must be approved by the Security Council. Hence, the problem for this corruption not only lies with the UN officials, but every nations that was a member of the security council during the Oil For Food Program era.

Hopefully we'll find out why the UN did not audit the program correctly, and why the Security Council members turned a blind eye on the corruption.