NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138759,00.html The level of corruption in this scam is just staggering. None of the people involved here had any manner of concience do they. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138759,00.html The level of corruption in this scam is just staggering. None of the people involved here had any manner of concience do they. What you have here is probably the largest case of corruption in the history of the UN. One that is resulting in an increase of casualties suffered by US military personel. Yet, you hear almost nothing from the mainstream media about this. Compare the amount of coverage this getting to the Iraqi prisoner scandal or this guy that just shot that Iraqi combatant in that mosque. Something is totally out of kilter here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 So can we hear again about how Saddam had no ties to terrorism? It honestly pisses me off that the scandel has gotten so little publicity, and of course it is only from right-winged media, or is has been buried on page 20, while vital stuff like the Peterson trial goes on the front page. The UN, France, China, and Russia were bribed with crude oil from Saddam Hussein. Hussien profited an estimated $20+ billion, and funneled that directly to terrorism. And no one seems to care. That just blows my mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 So can we hear again about how Saddam had no ties to terrorism? It honestly pisses me off that the scandel has gotten so little publicity, and of course it is only from right-winged media, or is has been buried on page 20, while vital stuff like the Peterson trial goes on the front page. The UN, France, China, and Russia were bribed with crude oil from Saddam Hussein. Hussien profited an estimated $20+ billion, and funneled that directly to terrorism. And no one seems to care. That just blows my mind. It was difficult to get UN backing with 2/3 of the Security Council taking bribes from Saddam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted November 17, 2004 Author Share Posted November 17, 2004 It was difficult to get UN backing with 2/3 of the Security Council taking bribes from Saddam. Then you have Kofi Annan telling everybody Bush was engaging in an illegal war while at the same time both he and his son were taking oil bribes from Saddam Husseins regime, funds that should have gone to ease the suffering of the Iraqi citizens. And he claims to care about the worlds downtrodden. Hmmph! The U.N. is a corrupt organization and needs to be turned upside down and shaken to its core to get rid of all the criminals that now are in charge over there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 I was just watching former head of the UN Oil for Food program Denis Halliday who said that billions of what went to Saddam in this program from Turkey, Jordan and a couple other countries I can't remember the names of off the top of my head was known to the US and was engineered by Washington as compensation due to the negative impact on trade with those countries and Iraq. Not all the countries involved but the US helped set up some of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 not a lot of thoughts on this thread.... hmmm, wonder why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 I was just watching former head of the UN Oil for Food program Denis Halliday who said that billions of what went to Saddam in this program from Turkey, Jordan and a couple other countries I can't remember the names of off the top of my head was known to the US and was engineered by Washington as compensation due to the negative impact on trade with those countries and Iraq. Not all the countries involved but the US helped set up some of them. That had nothing to do with the bribery of UN security council nations and officials. It also had nothing to do with Saddam shaving 50 cents a barrel off of everything that was handed out illegally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 So can we hear again about how Saddam had no ties to terrorism? It honestly pisses me off that the scandel has gotten so little publicity, and of course it is only from right-winged media, or is has been buried on page 20, while vital stuff like the Peterson trial goes on the front page. The UN, France, China, and Russia were bribed with crude oil from Saddam Hussein. Hussien profited an estimated $20+ billion, and funneled that directly to terrorism. And no one seems to care. That just blows my mind. A - f***ing- men! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 More on the investigation process. http://washingtontimes.com/national/200411...10708-9030r.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 That had nothing to do with the bribery of UN security council nations and officials. It also had nothing to do with Saddam shaving 50 cents a barrel off of everything that was handed out illegally. That was part of the billions that went to Saddam as compensation to Palestinian families for suicide bombings. And the reason it's not covered is because it's what's known as "spinach" in the media (I'm reading a book about media ownership right now and the section happens to just be talking about this sort of stuff) It is filled with information but having people on who actually know what they are talking about and discussing it does not interest the viewers (just like most people don't like spinach) They instead go for "pudding" stories that increase ad revenue, ratings and involve pundits yelling at each other and acting like dumbasses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 That was part of the billions that went to Saddam as compensation to Palestinian families for suicide bombings. And the reason it's not covered is because it's what's known as "spinach" in the media (I'm reading a book about media ownership right now and the section happens to just be talking about this sort of stuff) It is filled with information but having people on who actually know what they are talking about and discussing it does not interest the viewers (just like most people don't like spinach) They instead go for "pudding" stories that increase ad revenue, ratings and involve pundits yelling at each other and acting like dumbasses. Damn, and I don't even like spinach Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Damn, and I don't even like spinach I think that some in the media think the sox are "spinach" In all seriousness, I think this story would generate a lot of interest among Americans. It would give some creedence as to why France and Germany and Russia were so against the war. It would show the crookedness of the UN and how we can't rely on them to handle our problems. I think Americans want to know. There are plenty of people that can discuss it. I think people would much rather see the crookedness that was going on with oil for food then seeing a US Soldier shoot an injured terrorist over and over and over again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 I don't mean to hijack the convo here but why not just call them 'bombers' because I'd figure homicide would be part and parcel of bombing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Some people felt that "suicide bomber" made the bomber sound like a victim, which is f***ing nonsense. It obviously refers to the fact that the bomber took his own life in the process of taking others, rather than a normal bomber who would just kill other people. In this context, "homocide bomber" is a stupid and redundant term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted November 17, 2004 Author Share Posted November 17, 2004 I don't mean to hijack the convo here but why not just call them 'bombers' because I'd figure homicide would be part and parcel of bombing? The word terrorist works for me. I'm surprised though that the left hasn't taken to calling them martyrs yet, I mean that would be the politically correct thing to say would it not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 Nuke, as Pat Buchanan said -- "Terrorism is the war of the poor and war is the terrorism of the rich." Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, the panel's ranking minority member, said three-quarters of Iraq's illicit income came from trade protocols with Jordan and Turkey that the Clinton and Bush administrations had known about and "winked at" because support from those countries was vital. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 Personally, I think its a shame. But its no justification for going to war. I hope the people are held responsible and brought to justice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 One thing I find disturbing about all this is that the UN will not turn over any records on this issue. However, if the UN wants to hold on to all of the records, it's ok with me .... as long we stop funding the UN. They can get their asses off US soil too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 One thing I find disturbing about all this is that the UN will not turn over any records on this issue. However, if the UN wants to hold on to all of the records, it's ok with me .... as long we stop funding the UN. They can get their asses off US soil too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted November 18, 2004 Author Share Posted November 18, 2004 One thing I find disturbing about all this is that the UN will not turn over any records on this issue. However, if the UN wants to hold on to all of the records, it's ok with me .... as long we stop funding the UN. They can get their asses off US soil too. Someone has to hold them accountable for their corruption and hypocrasy. May as well be us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 Someone has to hold them accountable for their corruption and hypocrasy. May as well be us. May as well be since we pay all the bills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.