News The Dirty War for Oil: UN Oil-for-Food Scandal Implicates Putin Aides

[Pengwuino]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857167/

Top Kremlin operatives and a flamboyant Russian politician reaped millions of dollars in profits under the U.N. oil-for-food program by selling oil that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein allowed them to buy at a deep discount, a Senate investigation has concluded.

The allegations -- which also include descriptions of kickbacks paid to Hussein -- are detailed in hundreds of pages of reports and documents made public last night by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in advance of a hearing tomorrow.

The documents outline a trail of oil and money that leads directly from Iraq to the Kremlin and the former chief of staff to Russian President Vladimir Putin and former president Boris Yeltsin. The report said Iraq sought to influence and reward the Russian government because it sits on the powerful U.N. Security Council that oversaw sanctions against the Hussein government. Russia repeatedly sided with Iraq on issues before the Security Council.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I remember hearing about this. I heard that there were other UN members involved in the Oil-For-Food scandal too though.

 

[Pengwuino]

There were like, 123 people found in one listing of people involved in this kind of crap. The # of countries involved were... gosh it was so long ago when i read the list... like 20? Mainly arab and african nations... but French diplomats and Russia were also getting huge sums of money

 

[ron damon]

France is the new Soviet Union. Really.

Another thing one has to understand is that Russia is a very peculiar country. Somehow I don't feel either suprised nor offended by their behavior.

 

[Pengwuino]

Oh well they have some of the worlds largest oil reserves yet no way to refine a lot of it! Can't blame them for trying to stay competative in the industrial world... but hey, do a crime, and you get caught.

This forum is boring lol. I would have gotten 30 pages of flameing in my old forum :D I like it here i think

 

[stoned]

Again disinformation, Khodorovsky is getting jail sentence and all rats are spewing dirt to demonize Putin. Most of the biggest thiefs and swindlers luckilly escaped to Britain and Israel.
BTW.Putin is the best thing ever happened for Russia. We need someone like him here!
I admire Putin for staying cool when on all fronts he is attacked. Great Man !

 

[Pengwuino]

Who were the biggest theives?

 

[russ_watters]

I think stoned really meant to say Russia and France (and Kofi).

 

[stoned]

Big fishes at large;

Leonid Nevzlin- Yukos shareholder resides in Israel

Vladimir Dubov- Yukos shareholder resides inIsrael

Mikhail Brudno- Yukos shareholder also resides in Israel

Dmitry Golobov- head of Yukos legal dpt resides in Britain.

Natalya Chernysheva- former head of regional buissnes dept of Rosprom resides in Britain

Dmitry Maruyev - fromer head of Rosprom dept resides in Britain.

Mikhail Trushin- chairman of the board of Yukos- moscow Co resides in Britain

Aleksander Gorbachev- general directoe of Apatit -Trade firm resides in Britain

Mikhail Zvantsev- president of Sahaneft Co residence unknown

Pavlev Ivlev- partner of the lawyer firm ALM Feldmans resides in USA

In prison:

Khodorovsky and Lebedev of course and ;

Alexy Pichugin- former head of security at Yukos

Svetlana Bakhamina- deputy head of Yukos legal dept

Vladimir Pereverzin- former deputy head of Yukos financial dept

Dimitry Velichko- president of Rosinkor

Vladimir Malakhovsky- general director of Ratibor Co

Oleg Vitka- general director of Zapadno-Malobalykskoye Co

Alexy Kurstin - acting head manager of Yukos- Moscow Co

 

[stoned]

I think stoned really meant to say Russia and France (and Kofi).

you know your politics, like I know my calculus

 

[Pengwuino]

Well you catch the big fish... i caught this damn bug that was flyen around my desk :D

What makes those people "big fishies" and not putin?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:wLY7wjQHm0wJ:www.svetlanabakhmina.com/pdf/article_irishtimes.pdf+%22Aleksander+Gorbachev%22&hl=en
Doesn't look like every one of those fish got away.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

more
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2005/03/11/043.html

http://www.gazeta.ru/2003/09/17/Recordbreaki.shtml

 

[russ_watters]

Big fishes at large...

Source?

you know your politics, like I know my calculus

 

[SOS2008]

Everyone is involved to some extent or another.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7883488/

Documents released Monday by the minority Democrats on Coleman’s subcommittee examined two issues: Bayoil’s involvement in oil-for-food and a single instance that saw Saddam’s regime smuggle more than 7 million barrels of oil out of the Iraqi port of Khor al-Amaya, apparently with U.S. knowledge, in the weeks before the invasion in 2003.

U.S. link
The report found that Bayoil imported some 200 million barrels over two years starting in September 2000 and sold it to U.S. oil companies. That was at a time when Saddam was trying to tinker with the price of oil so that when he sold it, companies could be compelled to pay him kickbacks.

The report claimed that Bayoil paid “directly or indirectly” some $37 million in kickbacks to Saddam even at a time that the United States and other members of the council had realized what Saddam was doing and began ordering price hikes to quash the kickbacks scheme.

This reported today.

 

[Pengwuino]

and accused its chairman of maligning his good name.

Well he's guilty as sin in my book after reading that lol.

 

[SOS2008]

and accused its chairman of maligning his good name.

Well he's guilty as sin in my book after reading that lol.

Hopefully it will all come out in time with investigation. It's disgusting how many people/countries have been involved, and by no means should this be excused. Regarding the OP, however, does anyone believe the U.S. and/or U.S. companies have clean hands when it comes to oil? My point is only to understand the premise of casting stones.

 

[stoned]

what investigation ? this investigation is a scam ! just learn more about it from different sourcess not from CNN/Fox disinformation network.

 

[Pengwuino]

Wow stoned, I am starting to wonder what kind of sources you actually have that make you think this is all some sort of conspiracy theory.

 

[2CentsWorth]

Wow stoned, I am starting to wonder what kind of sources you actually have that make you think this is all some sort of conspiracy theory.

I think his point is that an investigation by a US Senate subcommittee will tend to be biased. I'm inclined to agree.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well any investigation is biased on this sort of scale. If it was done by the UN it would be even more biased as there the ones who helped facilitate the scam.

 

[2CentsWorth]

Well any investigation is biased on this sort of scale. If it was done by the UN it would be even more biased as there the ones who helped facilitate the scam.

Quite a quandary. This scandal seems to be the result of anarchy. Yet if the US takes charge, who polices the police?

 

[Pengwuino]

Well we shouldn't take charge, but we need to get to teh bottom of this scandal. Thats the problem with a 'world organization'. If they are corrupt... whos to stop them? They should hire a team of super sexy non-biased aliens from Mars to decide everything.

 

[stoned]

Tell me dude if congress or senate is sooo preoccupied with rule of law/corruption why the ****ing hell they don't investigate lies leading to Iraqi war and gangsters in White House ?? they are the bigest criminals/war criminals by Far ! THIS IS HUGE JOKE !
I tell you why because sentors themselfs are connected to the White House money spigot and the whole house of cards collapses.


PS.UN my friends is convienient scape goat on payroll of USA, if Washington wanted they could close UN in no time.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yes, liberating 25+ million people is a huge crime and funding a dictator that let die/killed 1.3million people is worthy of a medal. We're still waiting for your sources of information of course...

 

[Burnsys]

Yes, liberating 25+ million people is a huge crime and funding a dictator that let die/killed 1.3million people is worthy of a medal. We're still waiting for your sources of information of course...

When you say funding a dictator you mean America support and help to saddam in the 80's?

 

[Pengwuino]

Well when your the country next to a nuclear-mad man... your options are rather limited. But most people can't seem to understand that.

 

[russ_watters]

PS.UN my friends is convienient scape goat on payroll of USA, if Washington wanted they could close UN in no time.

That's pretty funny, stoned - if we're paying them, we're not getting our money's worth: they never listen!

No need to close it anyway: they are just irrelevant.

 

[russ_watters]

Quite a quandary. This scandal seems to be the result of anarchy. Yet if the US takes charge, who polices the police?

Seems like it should be a tough question, but it actually isn't. When pressed to stop posturing and endorse an opinion (or become irrelevant), the UN generally agrees on issues such as the Iraq war. Before the US acted, the UN unanamously agreed, in writing, that Iraq was a threat to world peace. That so many countries are now complaining is funny and hypocritical, but not much of a concern.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

And with what information did they come to this conclusion?

 

[Burnsys]

Seems like it should be a tough question, but it actually isn't. When pressed to stop posturing and endorse an opinion (or become irrelevant), the UN generally agrees on issues such as the Iraq war. Before the US acted, the UN unanamously agreed, in writing, that Iraq was a threat to world peace. That so many countries are now complaining is funny and hypocritical, but not much of a concern.

I think more funny and hypocritical is to support saddam hussein in the first time, give him inteligence data, aiding him and don't say nothing when he was actualy using chemical weapons becouse he was killing a lot of iranian, and that was good for America, and then totally turn around and say he is a cruel dictator (he always was, even when he was killing iran people and gassing the kurds.)
-----------------------------------------------------------
By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol requires that the international community respond to chemical warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a muted response to its complaints . It intensified its accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked for a United Nations Security Council investigation.

The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war . The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well

 

[Yonoz]

Again disinformation, Khodorovsky is getting jail sentence and all rats are spewing dirt to demonize Putin. Most of the biggest thiefs and swindlers luckilly escaped to Britain and Israel.
BTW.Putin is the best thing ever happened for Russia. We need someone like him here!
I admire Putin for staying cool when on all fronts he is attacked. Great Man !

Do you think there's one Russian tycoon that has accumulated their wealth in more respectable ways than Khodorovsky? (If you answer 'yes' then I guess you've never been to Russia)
Have you ever considered the possibility that there are other reasons for Khodorovski's imprisonment? Are you even aware of the political powers at work in modern Russia?
Maybe you should educate yourself a little more on this subject: Khodorovski's verdict (BBC)

Many analysts say the current trial is politically motivated and that Mr Khodorkovsky is being punished for his political ambition.

Before he was arrested by Russian authorities in October 2003, he had angered the Kremlin by starting to fund opposition political parties.

...

Mr Khodorkovsky has been in prison since October 2003 and during that time, the state has pursued Yukos for $27.5bn (£15bn) in back taxes.

When Yukos could not pay this last year, its main oil producing subsidiary Yuganskneftegas was forcibly sold off, ending up in the hands of Russian state oil firm Rosneft.

Rosneft is now suing Yukos - on behalf of Yugansk - for a total of $13bn in unpaid taxes, unpaid oil supplies and lost profits.

On Friday, a Moscow court upheld a $2.2bn claim by Rosneft against Yukos for not paying Yugansk for certain oil supplies.

Some commentators believe Rosneft may push for Yukos to go into bankruptcy as a precursor to enabling the Kremlin to take control of Yukos' remaining assets.

There you go - by prosecuting Khodorovsky Putin has taken over his entire oil business, and got rid of the biggest contributor to his opposition. Pretty simple to understand now, isn't it?
I'm sure you have no problem proclaiming the war in Iraq is about oil, even though you have to bend head over heels to support that claim, and yet, when there's political persecution and state sponsored theft in Russia you seem to disregard the most obvious explanations.
It looks to me like you're prejudiced.

 

[russ_watters]

And with what information did they come to this conclusion?

The same information we did: Saddam's decade of defiance following the 1991 Gulf War.

I think more funny and hypocritical is to support saddam hussein in the first time, give him inteligence data, aiding him and don't say nothing when he was actualy using chemical weapons becouse he was killing a lot of iranian, and that was good for America, and then totally turn around and say he is a cruel dictator (he always was, even when he was killing iran people and gassing the kurds.)
-----------------------------------------------------------
By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol requires that the international community respond to chemical warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a muted response to its complaints.

As you note, the entire world is complicit there. But at least the US is now standing up and putting a stop to him. Better late than never.

 

[2CentsWorth]

The same information we did: Saddam's decade of defiance following the 1991 Gulf War. As you note, the entire world is complicit there. But at least the US is now standing up and putting a stop to him. Better late than never.

Better late than never, as if the US is standing up for anything? The US does what ever serves it's current interests. A real foreign policy based on reason and true betterment for the world isn't likely.

The UN was initiated by the US to be a sandbox in which to play with friends who would support US interests. This quickly went awry with fallout between the US and the USSR. Did the US really expect other countries to stand aside and not want a piece of the pie too? Oh the webs we weave.

 

[stoned]

Hey Yonoz !
I know about Russia quite a lot and I don't need to read any BBC biased reports, BBC is British state controlled information network.
Thanks anyway.

If Khodorovsky was not jewish you would not mind at all his trial is that right ?
There is one very interesting story from recent weeks connected to the Khodorovsky trial but not so obvious, read beetwen the lines:, Russian Duma voted on May 9 to forbid dual citizens the right to head the Russian Cabinet.
You know to whom is that directed at ? think.

 

[Pengwuino]

Stoned, what exactly are your sources of information. You act as if any news organization is wrong and biased and that you are getting your information from some divine source...

 

[russ_watters]

The UN was initiated by the US to be a sandbox in which to play with friends who would support US interests. This quickly went awry with fallout between the US and the USSR. Did the US really expect other countries to stand aside and not want a piece of the pie too? Oh the webs we weave.

Since the US and the USSR were at odds before the creation of the UN and the world had significant power struggles before the creation of its predicessor - the League of Nations - I can't see why you would assert that the US would have ever thought the UN would be a puppet. So to answer the question: no, the US never intended or expected the UN to be a puppet.

 

[russ_watters]

If Khodorovsky was not jewish you would not mind at all his trial is that right ?

That's funny stoned, you assume a pro-jew bias where none exists, revealing your anti-jew bias. If he comitted crimes why should his religion be relevant to whether or not he should be tried? Of course he should!

 

[loseyourname]

I think more funny and hypocritical is to support saddam hussein in the first time, give him inteligence data, aiding him and don't say nothing when he was actualy using chemical weapons becouse he was killing a lot of iranian, and that was good for America, and then totally turn around and say he is a cruel dictator (he always was, even when he was killing iran people and gassing the kurds.)

I'm going to point out here the same thing I just pointed out to SOS in another thread. To show hypocrisy on the part of anyone, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that the US had, in the past, supported dictatorial regimes prior to removing Saddam from power. Such a stance fallaciously assumes that there exists some unchanging body politic that is "The US" and is responsible for every action taken historically by distinct administrations. In fact, each administration institutes its own foreign policy and is responsible only for the actions that it takes. To demonstrate hypocrisy implicit in the act of removing Saddam, it is necessary for you to show that the administration that removed him had, in the past, supported equally brutal dictators. That is, you must demonstrate that Bush and Powell and Rice and Rumsfeld, etc.; the persons who developed the policy under which Saddam was removed, had previously done the opposite.

 

[Yonoz]

I know about Russia quite a lot and I don't need to read any BBC biased reports, BBC is British state controlled information network.

Why is that? Allow me to join the others who have already asked you to reveal your unbiased, credulous and undoubtedly professional sources of information. Maybe your definition of "biased" is, well, biased

If Khodorovsky was not jewish you would not mind at all his trial is that right ?

What makes you believe that? Is that too something you learned from your omnipotent sources of information?
I believe I would mind it since it's a blatant display of disregard for justice and accumulation of power by the state, and it saddens me to see Russia lose its grip on democracy.
I do feel sympathy to the Jews of Russia, I don't think there's anything wrong with that or that it requires any sort of excuse. This matter however is not one of religious persecution, though it serves to fuel the growing antisemitism in Russia - it is a loss for democracy, justice and pluralism. I do not like Khodorovsky more than I like any other Russian oligarch - I believe they all make their money by dirty means, but then again - do you think businessmen in other nations are any different? Do you think all that power and wealth is going to be distributed in any way? I would refer you to some sources about Putin but I presume they won't be unbiased enough for you.
I feel sympathy for anyone that suffers from hate and prejudice - of which, IMO, you are full of. I believe the only reason you care so much for this trial is Khodorovsky's religious affiliation.

There is one very interesting story from recent weeks connected to the Khodorovsky trial but not so obvious, read beetwen the lines:, Russian Duma voted on May 9 to forbid dual citizens the right to head the Russian Cabinet.
You know to whom is that directed at ? think.

I'm sure you can find some perfectly logical explanation for that in one of your ever-correct sources. Please enlighten me and the other members of this forum as to what exactly I am meant to "think".

 

[Burnsys]

As you note, the entire world is complicit there. But at least the US is now standing up and putting a stop to him. Better late than never.

No.. the entire world didn't HELP him. may be they didn't do nothing, but they didn't actively help him, they didn't give him inteligence data, they didn't give him aid, they didn't give him dual-use equipment to Iraq's nuclear program and they didn't give him helicopters and heavy trucks and the most important.. they didn't transport iraki oil trhu iran and syrian piplines...

------------------------------------------------------------

His (Rumsfeld) December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting

Rumsfeld affirmed the Reagan administration's "willingness to do more" regarding the Iran-Iraq war, but "made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights." He then moved on to other U.S. concerns. Later, Rumsfeld was assured by the U.S. interests section that Iraq's leadership had been "extremely pleased" with the visit, and that "Tariq Aziz had gone out of his way to praise Rumsfeld as a person"

 

[alexandra]

I'm going to point out here the same thing I just pointed out to SOS in another thread. To show hypocrisy on the part of anyone, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that the US had, in the past, supported dictatorial regimes prior to removing Saddam from power. Such a stance fallaciously assumes that there exists some unchanging body politic that is "The US" and is responsible for every action taken historically by distinct administrations. In fact, each administration institutes its own foreign policy and is responsible only for the actions that it takes. To demonstrate hypocrisy implicit in the act of removing Saddam, it is necessary for you to show that the administration that removed him had, in the past, supported equally brutal dictators. That is, you must demonstrate that Bush and Powell and Rice and Rumsfeld, etc.; the persons who developed the policy under which Saddam was removed, had previously done the opposite.

Here's your proof, loseyourname - and it's not past; it's present: click on this link to a Washington Post article entitled "Bush's Words On Liberty Don't Mesh With Policies: U.S. Maintains Close Ties With Repressive Nations".
Here's the first paragraph of that article:

President Bush's soaring rhetoric yesterday that the United States will promote the growth of democratic movements and institutions worldwide is at odds with the administration's increasingly close relations with repressive governments in every corner of the world. - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24581-2005Jan20.html

 

[Yonoz]

No.. the entire world didn't HELP him. may be they didn't do nothing, but they didn't actively help him, they didn't give him inteligence data, they didn't give him aid, they didn't

Pre-Gulf War Iraq was also supplied with European-made weapons and weapons fabrication means, though not through government aid.

 

[russ_watters]

No.. the entire world didn't HELP him.

Well, I didn't say "help" - but regardless, a great many countries, including some of the loudest complainers (France, Russia, China), did actively help him.

alexandra, that's awfully thin: Putin may be a kgb throwback, but he doesn't throw dissidents into plastic shredders like Saddam did. He's not in the same category. Other countries mentioned (Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, etc.), and the US's policy toward them don't compare either.

But that's besides the point anyway. The hypocrisy that Burnsys (and others) have alleged requires you (or him or others) to show that Bush supported Saddam Hussein directly:

I think more funny and hypocritical is to support saddam hussein in the first time... and then totally turn around and say he is a cruel dictator...

Bush did no such thing.

 

[Burnsys]

That is, you must demonstrate that Bush and Powell and Rice and Rumsfeld, etc.; the persons who developed the policy under which Saddam was removed, had previously done the opposite.

Rumsfeld affirmed the Reagan administration's "willingness to do more" regarding the Iran-Iraq war, but "made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights." He then moved on to other U.S. concerns. Later, Rumsfeld was assured by the U.S. interests section that Iraq's leadership had been "extremely pleased" with the visit, and that "Tariq Aziz had gone out of his way to praise Rumsfeld as a person"

 

[russ_watters]

So then, Burnsys, that would show two decades of consistency in Rumsfeld's position, right? He was concerned about WMD and human rights in the '80's...

BTW, what do you think that handshake photo means?

 

[Burnsys]

Well, I didn't say "help" - but regardless, a great many countries, including some of the loudest complainers (France, Russia, China), did actively help him.

alexandra, that's awfully thin: Putin may be a kgb throwback, but he doesn't throw dissidents into plastic shredders like Saddam did. He's not in the same category. Other countries mentioned (Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, etc.), and the US's policy toward them don't compare either.

But that's besides the point anyway. The hypocrisy that Burnsys (and others) have alleged requires you (or him or others) to show that Bush supported Saddam Hussein directly: Bush did no such thing.

Rumsfeld should be dismised for his previous cooperation with a terrorist regime even when he knew it was using chemical weapons, and what is the US's policy toward egipt?? us sends its prisoners to be tortured in egipt, and to saudia arabia, they support a family of cruel royal dictators, just becouse the oil keep flowing...

 

[russ_watters]

Hey, you posted the quote, not me. It says quite clearly that the reason they didn't cooperate more is because of those issues.

 

[2CentsWorth]

The original contention is that the US does not have a foreign policy of removing dictators, not historically, nor even now. In the case of Iraq, removal of a ruthless dictator has been used as one of many justifications for invasion. But this does not mean it is US policy now, or going forward, or even on a case by case basis. Other related reasons, such as human rights violations, etc. are a more consistent aspect of US policy, though even with this one can see inconstancies.

 

[Pengwuino]

No.. the entire world didn't HELP him. may be they didn't do nothing, but they didn't actively help him, they didn't give him inteligence data, they didn't give him aid, they didn't give him dual-use equipment to Iraq's nuclear program and they didn't give him helicopters and heavy trucks and the most important.. they didn't transport iraki oil trhu iran and syrian piplines...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/airforce.htm

Iraq's more than 500 combat aircraft were formed into two bomber squadrons, eleven fighter-ground attack squadrons, five interceptor squadrons, and one counterinsurgency squadron of 10 to 30 aircraft each. Support aircraft included two transport squadrons. As many as ten helicopter squadrons were also operational, although these formed the Army Air Corps. The Air Defense Command piloted the MiG-25, MiG-21, and various Mirage interceptors and manned Iraq's considerable inventory of surfaceto -air missiles (SAMs).

Im sure those are chinese made Mirage jets though right? For anyoen who doesn't know, the Mirage fighter jet is a rather nice French-made interceptor jet.