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

[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.

 

[Pengwuino]

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.

Thats actually simple denial. Even if its case by case, your still showing a complete attitude of denial. You would have shown a lot more credibility if you said say "oh maaaaybe .. on a case by case basis there might be a good policy for the US" but no, you showed how your mind is set on completely supressing any idea that the US might have a good foreign policy at some point now or in the future.

 

[2CentsWorth]

Thats actually simple denial. Even if its case by case, your still showing a complete attitude of denial. You would have shown a lot more credibility if you said say "oh maaaaybe .. on a case by case basis there might be a good policy for the US" but no, you showed how your mind is set on completely supressing any idea that the US might have a good foreign policy at some point now or in the future.

The Bush administration has changed reasoning for invading Iraq on a regular basis, including removal of a 'bad' dictator. It has been made clear that all the justifications, from connection to 9-11, to WMD, and so forth has been nothing but propaganda. Removing a dictator is just more of the same. You are the one in denial.

 

[Burnsys]

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

Exactly.. but let me show you the entire context of this quote:

"Tariq Expressed apreciation for US Support of resolution 549 at te UN. I (Rumsfeld) Offered our willinges to do more.
CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED I 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. I pointed out that we where improving our contingency planning with gulf states as to our goal of keeping straits open.
From US standpoint, obiusly anything that is done that complicate lifes for iran and syria is helpfull and contributes to stability in the region"

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq32.pdf

So what rumsfeld says to iraq foreing ministry Tariq in this metting is: Look we are helping you and we want to help you more.. but you have to stop using chemical weapons so we can CONTINUE helping you.

anyway:

When asked whether the U.S.'s conclusion that Iraq had used chemical weapons would have "any effect on U.S. recent initiatives to expand commercial relationships with Iraq across a broad range, and also a willingness to open diplomatic relations," the department's spokesperson said "No. I'm not aware of any change in our position. We're interested in being involved in a closer dialogue with Iraq"
------------------------------------------

PD: Only god and rummy knows what is in the censored part...

 

[Pengwuino]

Im not the one saying that i'll never believe in a certain us policy. I don't know why they brought up 9/11... beyond me. We had a good reason to think there were WMD's when everyone was telling us we had them and he even used chemical weapons in the past and ordered his military to use them in this war (but I am sure you just think "oh he lied and the rest of that stuff didnt happen"). Plus of course, removing a dictator has always been a reason and a damn good reason for any remotely caring human being. Having multiple reasons doesnet turn it into propaganda. I am sorry for your denial.

 

[Pengwuino]

Whats with people like you Burnsys? It was IRAN. Do you ever read any history books and learn the context of our actions?

 

[2CentsWorth]

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.

There are many publications on the topic of UN formation and evolution, and there are those who argue the UN not only has been used as a puppet (your words), but also through countries with leaders who are puppets of the US. Just because one may not agree with this view, it does not mean there is no such view.

 

[Pengwuino]

What nations are our puppets? I want a puppet nation of my own :D

Ok that's the last post from me for a few i think lol. I had 3 finals today, one at 6 :30am... and my math final was like... i got tricked into walking onto a nuclear testing range... boy am i exausted

 

[loseyourname]

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:

I'm not sure I would call an editorial column "proof" of inconsistency in this administration's foreign policy. There is a lot of rhetoric in there as well, exactly what the writer is accusing Bush of. Ideally, you'd do everything yourself or with allies of like mind. In reality, however, circumstances often dictate marriages of convenience and administrations are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils for lack of a better choice. The administration could be completely consistent and downplay human rights abuses everywhere in the world, or it can be pragmatic and ease up somewhat on nations that are willing to help and that are good on these things relative to the abuses perpetrated by the regime being removed. It will be interesting to see how these allies are treated in the future by this same administration and whether or not they will eventually be taken to task for their own violations.

Let us take the North Korea example. If China is willing institute minor reforms that are at least a step in the right direction, and if they help to contain North Korea, is that not better overall? If the choice is that or to continue to blacklist China and ignore the growing threat from North Korea because of commitments elsewhere, what is the better choice? I know Kant valued consistency as the only true ethical value, but is there anyone that really still thinks that way? I guess I've never been a big detractor of hypocrisy and I also believe that all human are inherently hypocritical. We have biases and we change our minds as well. Our actions at any given time are never going to be in complete accordance with our professed beliefs. The best we can hope to do is to evaluate each decision we make on a case by case basis to determine what the right thing to do is. If removing Saddam was the right thing to do, it remains the right thing to do even if all other dictators are ignored. I don't think that all other dictators will be ignored, nor do I think the administration has been nearly as hypocritical as everyone seems convinced here, but even if I did, that doesn't necessarily make the greatest difference to me in evaluating any specific action it takes.

I suppose there are these two defenses that can be mounted for this administration. As someone who will probably be a lawyer by the end of the decade, this is the way my thinking steers. In reality though, Russ and I are being apologists. The others are building a case and we are building an opposing case, which requires all of us to emphasize that which supports our arguments and ignore or downplay that which doesn't. The reality of the matter, ethically speaking, probably lies somewhere nearer the center of the arguments taking place in public and private discussion groups.

 

[Burnsys]

Whats with people like you Burnsys? It was IRAN. Do you ever read any history books and learn the context of our actions?

If you can't see i am quoting US declasified documents, i think there is no history book better than that...

 

[Burnsys]

What nations are our puppets? I want a puppet nation of my own :D

Ok that's the last post from me for a few i think lol. I had 3 finals today, one at 6 :30am... and my math final was like... i got tricked into walking onto a nuclear testing range... boy am i exausted

For example my goverment. Argentina goverments... it has been a puppet since 50 years...
And i can surely tell you, Bolivia, Colombia, Chile, Peru, Paraguay, And all centroamerican countrys are us puppet, for example tell me.. what kind of country could give an island of their own to US so they can test their missiles? a puppet government only...

And by the way. did you know that Georgian senators Salary is paid by america? haha yeah. amazing...

Just for example. somenthing i posted the other day..
To show how America and the imf controls our economic policy..

This was a note in the most important argentinian newspaper... Just imagine a note like this on the washingtong post, it's humilliating...
---------------------------------------
RESUMED TODAY IN WASHINGTON THE MANAGEMENTS BEFORE THE MONETARY FUND
Now the pressure of the IMF is for the private service rates and the fiscal surplus

In the list of worries of the Department of the Treasure, and also of the IMF, the debt that continues in default does not figure already in the first position. There are other more important themes in their agendas: rise in the rates of public services and the regulatory framework for the businesses ; and the fiscal theme, that includes the level of primary surplus (they would ask around 5% against the 3% presented by Argentina) and the law of coparticipación or what call here the "federalización of the tax system".
----------------------------------------