US turned blind eye to Iraq oil smuggling

[shamrock_uk]

Well, this has been common knowledge for a while, but been waiting for a US Senate report as I know how much some of you don't trust the UN or the BBCs own reports

Anyway, once America gets over its righteous fury at the French and George Galloway for the oil for food kickbacks, it turns out that they are just as much in the wrong.

The US allowed Saddam to flout sanctions and continue oil smuggling: the revenue comes to a value 40 times larger than the oil for food kickbacks...

The US explicitly allowed shipments through its naval blockades and apparently even facilitated sales on occasion, largely to secure support from surrounding countries in the Middle-East.

But yeah, freedom fries... Hypocrisy hamburgers? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 05-17-2005, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Timber Loftis]

So, the US took kickbacks? No? Then what exactly was its "wrongdoing"? Not catching every smuggled shipment. Letting a few through, sometimes for diplomatic purposes?

Hmmm.... different than taking kickbacks?

I think so. But, if not, I don't care. We don't like the French leader. We can come up with reasons, but hey why play the charade -- we don't like him, and that's that. Goes for most of the rest of France and a good deal of Europe altogether, too. In fact, it's a darned good thing there's an ocean between us.

[Albromor]

What I find amazing is the almost utter lack of European outrage over France's (as well as other's) duplicity with Saddam when he was in power.

The screaming has been, "Bush has been doing this for oil!" Hmmm, seems some Europeon countries, as well as Russia, has been doing the same thing but rather than taking Saddam out they helped him stay in power.

[shamrock_uk]

"A few" = "A lot!" American complicity in his smuggling did far more to keep his regime in power than the oil for food kickbacks.

I understand the allegations still haven't been proven yet? But assuming they are accurate, I'm not outraged about France because I find it rather amusing. I expect countries to do things like this, even if I don't think it ideal - its a dirty world. And well, as our friendly rivals across the English Channel, we expect no less from them

America gets more outrage from me because I'm fed up with hearing about how morally righteous they apparently are and how they have the right to shove it down my throat, despite not a word of it being true. The French are just the French, they just get on with life and they only interfere with Britain when they block the Channel Ports or fight to prevent a reduction in the CAP budget. America has to always be on some moral crusade, which would be tolerable in principle, except its always bullcrap and we never stop being told about it!

In the last seven days:

1) It emerges that America allows Saddam to break the sanctions that they got imposed on him - ensuring that only the poor suffer whilst Saddam lines his pockets

2) America says its "deeply disturbed" by the massacre of protesters (several hundred) in Uzbekistan. Those aren't the words that spring to mind for me - "bloody outrageous" would be more like it. A more appropriate response would be to stop sending this evil dictator millions upon millions of dollars every year and to insist upon democratic elections. Somehow the CIA acknowledges "systematic, widespread torture" yet describes this regime as "moderate"

3) North Korea gets beaten over the head more with the Bush administration stick of non-proliferation. Despite the US withdrawing from the ABM treaty and breaking the most fundamental part of the non-proliferation treaty by seeking to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons to use on the battlefield.

Aaaargh!

[ 05-17-2005, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Timber Loftis]

Shamrock, you can express all the dismay you like about Saddam's abuses under Oil-for-Food and US complicity. Fact is, if Germany and France hadn't been selling him arms under the table, it wouldn't have been such an issue.

Now, let's look at two main gripes: (1) the US was complicit w/ scamming Oil-for-Food and/or did not enforce it enough (including, I presume, blowing French and German vessels outta the frikkin water -- which doesn't sound like a bad idea, come to think of it); and (2) Oil-for-Food should have never been in place, and the sanctions only hurt Iraqis.

AAAARGH!!!! Yourself! As always, you want it both ways. If the US does "a" it's damned and if it does "b" it's damned. It's no wonder we in the US look at you, take up our best Cartman impersonation and say "Screw you guys, I'm goin home."

[Aragorn1]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: [ 2) America says its "deeply disturbed" by the massacre of protesters (several hundred) in Uzbekistan. Those aren't the words that spring to mind for me - "bloody outrageous" would be more like it. A more appropriate response would be to stop sending this evil dictator millions upon millions of dollars every year and to insist upon democratic elections. Somehow the CIA acknowledges "systematic, widespread torture" yet describes this regime as "moderate" [/QB]

Is it me or does this seem another case of, "any enemy of my enemy is my friend." They support Bush in the 'War' on Terror, and they turn Nelson's telescope towards the indiscretions of the government. I feel i have seen this attitude before with Rhee, Diem, Batitsta, régimes in Nicaragua and El Salvador etc, only now communism has been replaced by terrrorism as the evil.

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: AAAARGH!!!! Yourself! As always, you want it both ways. If the US does "a" it's damned and if it does "b" it's damned.

Not really both ways, just would prefer it one way! Either continue with current behaviour but drop the rhetoric about doing it for the good of the world, or keep the rhetoric and change the policies to reflect it.

It's no wonder we in the US look at you, take up our best Cartman impersonation and say "Screw you guys, I'm goin home."

Well, I can't argue with a legend like Cartman. But if "look at you" refers to me personally, then see above for what I want from US policy. Just some consistency. If it refers to Europe in general, then I would hazard a guess that a more isolationist US would be preferred. Neither of them are impossible to do...

[ 05-17-2005, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Timber Loftis]

You referred to EU generally, not Shamrock. Look, I'll talk and talk and talk. But, damn, you Euros just get the best of me. Your countries will talk and whine something to death. It's taking its toll on me. No one wants to work with someone who is guaranteed to bitch no matter what.

We're doers. And, I think we're better for it.

[shamrock_uk]

And I would agree normally. I loved that in America when I visited. But the world is a complicated place, sometimes sitting on your ass bitching is less damaging than just doing stuff. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 05-17-2005, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[johnny]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: And I would agree normally. I loved that in America when I visited. But the world is a complicated place, sometimes sitting on your ass bitching is less damaging than just doing stuff. [img]smile.gif[/img]

It's just that at one point the bitching has got to stop and get something going. But that doesn't happen, we keep bitching until we all have long grey beards. Have you ever seen a bitch with a long grey beard ? It's not a pretty sight.