The real tragedy behind Iraq war...

POSTED BY: lynchaj
UPDATED: Sunday, June 19, 2005 05:17
VIEWED: 4115
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

HOTPOINT

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 5:52 PM

You are aware of the large role of American Firms in sanctions busting with the full knowledge of the US Government right?

It was big news about a month ago after a Senate Investigation showed that the illegal shipments of Oil by US firms actually account for 52% of the total, more than everyone else combined in fact.

...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 8:17 PM

No, the real tradgedy of the Iraq war was that the shoot first and find WMD's later mentality that allowed the war to be waged in the first place is what caused George Lucas to destroy that terrific scene in Star Wars where Han shoots Greedo first (in self defence, I might add ) to keep people who aren't able to judge for themselves what exactly constitutes a threat to be stategically acted upon from feeling justified in ignorantly doing so.
Oh, and people got killed, too. That was really bad.

Dare anyone to write a run on sentance that convoluted and still make sense Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 11:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
In my opinion, if OFF had never happened, most likely Saddam's regime would had collapsed and we would have had an opportunity to get to the ground truth on all the missing WMD. Then we would have/could have avoided this messy war in the first place.

Actually, I agree with much of what you said, except the part about missing WMD's.
You can't, by definition, miss what never was.
( Okay, before you start, yes, he was working on them, yes, he was/is a monster, yes, it's good he's behind bars, yes, many Iraquis are happy, and they have at least a shot of a better republic, I just woulda liked it better if Bush had said "He has to go, and were gonna do it, period." Then again, I woulda liked it better if another President said "Yeah, I f@#*ed with her, it's non of your buisness." Oh well...)

Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 11:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
I sure would miss your witty comments.

Does that mean you think my post about George Lucas was funny?

It made me laugh Chrisisall

HOTPOINT

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 6:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Next time, would you mind posting a link to support your assertions?

Is this what you were referring to? I searched for a bit and had a hard time finding it from a reputable source.

My apologies I didn't think it was a particularly obscure story. By the way it wasn't just Senator Levin who produced the report on his own and as for it not being an "official" finding that doesn't mean it wasn't true and indeed the US company that chartered the Tankers has actually confirmed the story!

Here's another couple of links for you

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4554507.stm

"The US 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, on occasion, the US actually facilitated the illicit oil sales."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1485546,00.html

Investigators found correspondence showing that Odin Marine Inc, the US company chartering the seven huge tankers which picked up the oil at Khor al-Amaya, repeatedly sought and received approval from US military and civilian officials that the ships would not be confiscated by US Navy vessels in the Maritime Interdiction Force (MIF) enforcing the embargo.

Odin was reassured by a state department official that the US "was aware of the shipments and has determined not to take action".

The company's vice president, David Young, told investigators that a US naval officer at MIF told him that he "had no objections" to the shipments. "He said that he was sorry he could not say anything more. I told him I completely understood and did not expect him to say anything more," Mr Young said.

An executive at Odin Maritime confirmed the senate account of the oil shipments as "correct" but declined to comment further.

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:

If the corporations broke the law, then they should be prosecuted. Where are the lawsuits against the alleged perpetrators?

If the US Government was aware this was going on then they would be equally culpable

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. When a third party commits offenses does not make the US Government responsible for Iraqi oil smuggling. Maybe there was some slack cut to Jordan prior to war to ease the impact but I don't see massive US corruption here. Nothing at all like the OFF scandal involving the French and Russians.

It's not an issue of corruption the point is one of hypocrisy and smokescreen.

The US administration and its supporters tries to use the OFF scandal to try and muddy the waters (apologies for the mixed metaphor) around the Iraq situation to make it look like the invasion was in some way made more necessary because of sanctions busting helping to shore up the Saddam regime.

However, if the Administration knew of American firms involved in the sanctions busting too before the war, and did nothing to stop it, that indicates they didn't consider the issue very important at all. It only became important later when trying to spin the media coverage of the Iraq fiasco away from just criticising Washington.

...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First

HOTPOINT

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 6:56 PM

Just to follow-up on my earlier post another link for you:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30725-2005Feb16.html

UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 16 -- The Treasury Department provided assurances that the United States would not obstruct two companies' plans to import millions of barrels of oil from Iraq in March 2003 in violation of U.N. sanctions, according to an e-mail from one of the companies.

Diplomats and oil brokers have recently said that the United States had long turned a blind eye to illicit shipments of Iraqi oil by its allies Jordan and Turkey. The United States acknowledged this week that it had acquiesced in the trade to ensure that crucial allies would not suffer economic hardships.

But the e-mail, along with others released this week by Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Governmental Affairs panel's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, provides evidence that the Bush administration directly abetted Jordan's efforts to build up its strategic reserves with smuggled Iraqi oil in the weeks before the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003.

The illicit oil exports took place outside the Iraq oil-for-food program, which the United Nations administered from 1996 to 2003. While allegations of corruption and mismanagement in that program are under investigation by five congressional committees, the Justice Department and a U.N.-appointed panel, the illicit oil exports outside the program have received less scrutiny. According to investigators, Iraq received more revenue from those exports than from the alleged oil-for-food kickbacks.

"The bulk of [Saddam Hussein's] illicit oil sale revenues actually came from the money he received from unregulated sales of Iraqi oil, entirely outside of the oil-for-food program, primarily to Turkey, Jordan and Syria," Levin said at a hearing Tuesday on the U.N. management of Iraqi oil revenue. "We and the rest of the world looked the other way from those sales even though they were prohibited by the U.N. sanctions regime."

...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 7:46 PM

Lynch-

Quote:
Saddam's rearming and WMD programs

See, you lost me there. Been proven many times over- there was no rearming, there were no WMD programs. Will you please get your head out of your butt and stop asserting untruths?

Oh, and BTW- just because someone is critical of Bush does not make them "biased". It is very possible that Bush deserves all the criticism that he gets. That can only be determined if one lays aside ones' preconceived notions of what the conclusion should be, and actually looks at the facts. That appears to be too much to expect.

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:06 AM

Your assertions are full of empty holes at which you point and gibber. You use lack of evidence only to "prove" that Saddam was wilier than both Kay/Duelfer and UNMOVIC combined. Meanwhile, both the pre- and post-invasion reports are quite clear: there were no WMD programs: no research, no pilot-plants, no production, no stockpiles of either old OR new WMD. Nothing. Nada. Zip. You can think of all kinds of paranoid scenarios, but none of them make sense. I challenged you to come up with a coherent explanation that fits the data, I even offered you three starting scenarios to modify to your heart's content, and you bailed. You "declared victory and left the field". And do you want to know why???

Because you can't think of any credible scenario that backs up your assertions I asked you again in this thread to prove your point. I will ask you AGAIN:

Come up with an evidence-based scenario that explains your assertion that Saddam's actions represented rearming and WMD programs of any sort. Last chance, AJ. Come up with that scenario. If you duck (again) we'll all know how credible your thoughts are on the topic.

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 16, 2005 4:28 AM

Oh, and just to stay on-topic- THEN you can show us how Saddam was an "imminent threat" to the USA.