Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 11/22/2004 View Sun 11/21/2004 View Sat 11/20/2004 View Fri 11/19/2004 View Thu 11/18/2004 View Wed 11/17/2004 View Tue 11/16/2004
1
2004-11-22 International-UN-NGOs
UN knew of Saddam's oil-for-food thefts: BBC
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Fred 2004-11-22 00:15:10 AM|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [514 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 You know the UN is in real trouble if the BBC turns on it.
Posted by phil_b 2004-11-22 12:30:17 AM||   2004-11-22 12:30:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 
The businessmen ... said it was standard to pay commissions, that nobody complained, and that was the price of doing business with Iraq.

This kind of corruption didn't begin and won't end with the Oil-for-Food Program, and it's not unique to this situation involving the United Nations.

That's the way business has always been done in Iraq and in most other politically retarded countries. Iraq has been a premier example ever since it was founded as an independent state. Under Saddam Hussein's regime this kind of corruption became legendary.

Now all the fault-finders say that it was all Kofi Annan's fault that this corruption was not corrected during the four or so years of the Food-for-Oil Program. As if the fault-finders, if they themselves had been in Annan's position, would have managed the program any better.

It's been said that politics is the art of the possible.

After Iraq invaded Kuwait, the USA wanted the UN to approve a military intervention. The UN cooperated. After Iraq was expelled from Kuwait, the USA wanted the UN to impose international sactions on Iraq. The UN cooperated. As many years passed, however, the international support for sanctions waned.

Despite the reduction of international support for the sanctions, they were maintained through a series of political compromises. One such compromise was the Food-for-Oil Program.

Within that program, another such compromise was that Iraq itself would select the suppliers and order the goods that it would import. These compromises had to be accepted if the sanctions were to continue. One consequence of this particular compromise is that Iraq was able to corrupt all the suppliers, as it had always corrupted all its suppliers.

Now the demagogues lay all this at the feet of Kofi Annan and his evil son Kojo Annan. If Iraq managed to arrange all this corruption, the reasoning goes, then it must have happened only because Kofi Annan intended it to happen. And he must have willed it to happen, the reasoning continues, because he would profit personally from the corruption. And since it's obvious that he intended to profit personally, then no real evidence is needed for groundless insinuations like the smearing of Kofi and Kojo Annan. The vaguest, loosest circumstantial evidence is good enough.

If Kofi Annan had not been the Secretary General of the UN, there might not have ever been any sanctions at all imposed by the UN against Iraq. When he became the Secretary General, he was widely considered to the the USA's puppet. He has been a good friend of the USA, and he has done much for us because he has been able to arrange necessary compromises -- to practice effectively the art of the possible.

For years before Annan became the UN Secretary General, the USA had withheld from the UN much of the money it had committed itself to contribute to the UN's budget. US Senator Jesse Helms had blocked that money for years, but he was satisfied enough with Annan's management of the UN, that he used his power in the US Senate to release that money to the UN.

Now many in the USA have decided to demonize Kofi Annan. No accusation is considered to be too extreme. Kofi Annan enabled genocides all over the world. Kofi Annan personally corrupted the UN for his own personal profit. And so forth and so on.

And yet people here wonder why so many foreigners consider the USA to be an arrogant, stupid, self-defeating country!
.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-22 12:45:11 AM||   2004-11-22 12:45:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Well Mike, Kofi was an enabler in the Rwanda genocide. That seems pretty clear.

And he suckered Bill Clinton into going back into Somalia in '93.

And he tried to manipulate American public opinion during the election.

And he's not exactly forthcoming in the Oil-for-Palaces probe.

So yeah, I'm not real fond of the guy. He's not Saddam, he's not a Burmese general, but he's on the order of Chirac. And I don't like him, either.
Posted by Steve White  2004-11-22 12:56:57 AM||   2004-11-22 12:56:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Yikes. Sanctions were imposed before the war, Anan wasn't SecGen, and no, I've seen you present not a single reason to render the views of "so many" foreigners any less arrogant or stupid than they clearly are. And if you can list the "self-defeats" the US has suffered, I'd be much obliged. I'm checking back through the last few years, and see defeat after defeat for the clueless in the west and the enemy everywhere. None for the USA. Better up the meds on this Kofi thing. There's a decent chance his arrogant, morally imbecilic, slimy anti-US rear will not serve out his term, and we wouldn't want anyone falling victim to PEST or anything ....
Posted by Verlaine 2004-11-22 12:57:37 AM||   2004-11-22 12:57:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Mike S, speaking as one of those foreigners, the article doesn't mention Kofi. It's about institutionalized corruption aided and abetted by the UN. Having said that Kofi as the man in charge could have done a lot more to expose the corruption. And as far America's stupidity is concerned, being the largest contributor to such a blatantly anti-American organization is far and away the largest stupidity.
Posted by phil_b 2004-11-22 4:11:45 AM||   2004-11-22 4:11:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Who was in charge of UN peace keeping operations during Rawanda:Kofi.Who was in charge of OFF:SG.Kofi.Who is the SG of the UN during the on-going genocide in the Sudan:Kofi(why hasn't it been called genocide?If it is called genocide then the UN would have to act). Connect the dots MS.Have you ever heard the expression"The buck stops here".
Posted by raptor 2004-11-22 7:07:08 AM||   2004-11-22 7:07:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 
Re #6 (Raptor):

What's OFF?

Raptor, in this previous thread I posed a couple of questions to the people who claim now they would have supported a UN intervention in Rwanda back then. I'll pose the questions again today for you to answer:

About how many combat troops do you think the USA should have sent as part of this effort? 10,000? 50,000? More? Compared to our force in, say, Iraq, how large should our deployment to Rwanda have been?
.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-22 7:44:24 AM||   2004-11-22 7:44:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Mike has no answers, only spun questions, demanding answers from everyone else. He is an apologist and sattrap for the UN and any other anti-American NGO. Basically Kofi in drag
Posted by Frank G  2004-11-22 8:27:00 AM||   2004-11-22 8:27:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 
Re #3 (Steve White):

Kofi was an enabler in the Rwanda genocide. That seems pretty clear.

If you had been in Kofi Annan's position when the Hutus began massacring the Tutis in Rwanda, what would you have done differently?

If the USA had sent in one airborne brigade to stop the massacre, and if that force turned out to be insufficient, then would you have supported sending in a second brigade?

And he suckered Bill Clinton into going back into Somalia in '93.

How? (I never heard this accusation before.)

And he's not exactly forthcoming in the Oil-for-Palaces probe.

The UN is investigating that matter through an independent commission headed by Paul Volcker, who has rejected premature interference by grand-standing US Congressmen. Volcker's explanation is here.
.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-22 8:29:45 AM||   2004-11-22 8:29:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Mike is an absolute moron when it comes to the UN. He's obviously getting something from the UN, either a salary. a handout, or something else. Freak.

Kofi Annan is an enabler, an enabler of terror and an enabler of the current genocide in the Sudan. Plain and simple.
Posted by AllahHateMe 2004-11-22 8:33:23 AM||   2004-11-22 8:33:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 
Re #10 (AllahHateMe):

Here's a couple previous posts for your reading pleasure:

How Kofi Annan Enabled the Genocide in Rwanda

How Kofi Annan Enabled the Genocide in Bosnia
.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-22 8:50:32 AM||   2004-11-22 8:50:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Mike:

Your faint praise for Annan amounts to: If Kofi Annan had not been the Secretary General of the UN, there might not have ever been any sanctions at all imposed by the UN against Iraq.

While that individual decision was a correct one, over the course of his leadership he has done nothing to stem (and some would say he accelerated) the perception of the UN as a bastion of petrowhores and anti-US constituencies.

Simply put:

He allowed the Rwanda genocide to occur
He allows the Sudanese genocide to go on
While condemning Israel at every turn, he is silent about palestinian terror -- even though that terror escalated on his watch
He obstructs the oil-for-food investigation

....and so on
Posted by PlanetDan  2004-11-22 8:54:27 AM||   2004-11-22 8:54:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 
#12 (PlanetDan):

He allowed the Rwanda genocide to occur

If you had been in his position, what would you have done differently so that it didn't occur?

He allows the Sudanese genocide to go on

Would you agree that President George W. Bush also allows the Sudanese genocide to go on? If you wouldn't agree, then what distinction do you make?

he is silent about palestinian terror

No, he isn't. He has denounced Palentinian terror many times. Will you send me $5 for every link I post with one of his denunciations?
.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-22 9:05:09 AM||   2004-11-22 9:05:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Mike, I generally avoid commenting on your UN-supporting rants, but you've got me today. The amount of crap you have piled into #2 above is intolerable.

My country's tax dollars and military resources are going to support an institution that can't do anything right except perhaps providing a forum for discussion in New York and air dropping food aid in worthy places now and then. The U.N. bureaucracy is well-infused with crooks and charlatans of every persuasion, and I don't appreciate helping to pick up their tab.

Frankly, the third world can just go ahead and do their Darwinian things as far as I am concerned. And that includes Somalia, Rawanda, Ethiopia, and Sudan. As long as they don't directly threaten me or my friends, they can go ahead and hack each other or starve each other to death. I'm sick and tired of trying to hold the high moral ground for the innocents in cultures who are either clueless, not willing to defend themselves, greedy, power-crazed, religous zealots, or overpopulated in barren lands.

You want the U.N.? Go ahead, but pay for it yourself and get on an airplane and go do your rescue thing. And while you're risking your life in some hell hole, remember good old wonderful Kofi and Jacques who are back in civilization dining on $1,000 dinners and giving lofty speeches. They're rootin' for ya, Mike!
Posted by Tom 2004-11-22 9:12:22 AM||   2004-11-22 9:12:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Would you agree that President George W. Bush also allows the Sudanese genocide to go on? If you wouldn't agree, then what distinction do you make?

-distinction: one is the president of a sovereign nation with no duty or mandate to intervene whatsoever in the business of another such as Sudan. Annan is the leader of a quasi-global organization with a duty &/or a mandate (afaik) to provide assistance in the event of a genocide which I believe Darfur now has become.

The corollary is that Bush has no prime directive to intervene, the UN is supposed to under the leadership of the SG.

Your doing a poor Aris impersonation with your socratic method Mike.
Posted by Jarhead 2004-11-22 9:18:03 AM||   2004-11-22 9:18:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 Tom, you're talking about the forest. Mike only deals with one tree at a time without comment on the forest as a whole or how any given tree may affect it.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-22 9:18:24 AM||   2004-11-22 9:18:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 The trolls who keep on bringing up my name in threads, may they shut up.

And "AllahHateMe", instead of thinking up dark motives for the people you disagree with, and essentially claiming that "obviously" Mike Sylwester must be on the pay, try to first treat people as if they are honest in their beliefs they claim. Possibly *stupid* in said beliefs, possibly *evil*, *reactionary*, *racist* or *whatever* in these beliefs, but honest in them nonetheless. I'm not talking about just Mike here. I'm talking about people in general.

If you simply called a person stupid, that could be ignorable -- making however a factual accusation is only certain to increase the levels of contempts towards your person if such accusation is false. Kinda like all the people in Rantburg who thought that I must be Turkish because I didn't conform to their mental image of the stereotypical Greek, and needed to disconnect themselves from reality instead of accepting the world-as-is. They went a long way towards earning my contempt with such attitude.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-11-22 9:43:58 AM||   2004-11-22 9:43:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 Mike S,

I will send you $5 for every one of Kofi's denunciations of Palestinian terror that DOES NOT DRAW false moral equivalence between suicide bombing and Israel's legitimate right to self defense. If you agree to send me just $1 for every one of his "denunciations" that does express such equivalence. Can't wait to count my money...
Posted by mjh 2004-11-22 9:50:50 AM||   2004-11-22 9:50:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 The trolls who keep on bringing up my name in threads, may they shut up.

Time to get adjusted to fame, freedom of speech and the Sullivan decision.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-22 9:52:22 AM||   2004-11-22 9:52:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 Free speech means that you can't be dragged to court over it. Doesn't mean you can't be called asses over it.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-11-22 9:54:35 AM||   2004-11-22 9:54:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 OFF:OIl For Food.Yes I would have supported intervention,I told you the other day my thoughts on terrorisiam,genocide but I will repeat them for your edification.All terrorist and those who perpetrate genocide should be hunted down and killed,those individuals who support terror/genocide should be hunted down and imprisioned or killed,those country's that support terror/genocide should be destroyed.A brigade probbly would have done it with massive air support.
I think I may have you figured out,MS.It seems to me that you are one of those ineffective beuracrates who is afraid of upsetting the status quo,after all who is next after the UN and CIA are cleaned-out State,or DOJ.What will happen to poor Mikey when his rice bowl is broken?
Posted by raptor 2004-11-22 9:56:28 AM||   2004-11-22 9:56:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 Mike S...in #13...you point out that the US as equally culpable in its inaction as the UN. The difference between the two is that the UN is not a sovereign nation, and its purported purpose is to transcend nationalism and act in the best interests of the world's peoples (perhaps an oversimplification, but I don't have time to excerpt the charter, and I think it's an apt summary). The US, on the other hand has no responsibility other than to protect its own interest, the same as any other sovereign nation. So...1) why is the US equally culpable if the UN is the organization supposedly responsible for such transnational issues as genocide in Darfur, etc.? ; 2.) Why should the UN exist if it cannot act to enforce its supposed mandate and is dependent on other sovereign nations for its survival?; 3.)Why should the US be more to blame than any other member nation of the UN?
Posted by mjh 2004-11-22 9:59:09 AM||   2004-11-22 9:59:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 MS ask:What would I do differently if I was SG of the UN?I would have stood-up in the GA on a daily basis demanding in no un-certain terms that member states put a stop to it by any means necassary.
Right back at ya,MS.What would you have done?
Posted by raptor 2004-11-22 10:04:07 AM||   2004-11-22 10:04:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 no fair, Raptor! MS asks all the questions!
Posted by Frank G  2004-11-22 10:06:52 AM||   2004-11-22 10:06:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 MS: And yet people here wonder why so many foreigners consider the USA to be an arrogant, stupid, self-defeating country!

MS thinks that corruption is simply what everyone does. That might be the Muslim or the European way, but that is not the American way. Somehow, MS has transformed this into a critique of America, instead of pointing the finger at the wrongdoers. And yet MS wonders why so many Rantburgers consider MS to be an arrogant, stupid, self-defeating person! We are Americans. We're Puritans - we don't do either moral equivalence or moral compromise - this is why we pressed for unconditional surrender during WWII, instead of an armistice, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American dead.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-11-22 10:32:34 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2004-11-22 10:32:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 MS: If Kofi Annan had not been the Secretary General of the UN, there might not have ever been any sanctions at all imposed by the UN against Iraq. When he became the Secretary General, he was widely considered to the the USA's puppet. He has been a good friend of the USA, and he has done much for us because he has been able to arrange necessary compromises -- to practice effectively the art of the possible.

This is a bunch of rank BS. Initially, various countries lined up in favor of sanctions because they were afraid of an American withdrawal from Saudi Arabia and a revived Saddam in the aftermath of that withdrawal (and the negative implications for the oil-rich region's security). Once it became clear that the US would do whatever it took to keep Saddam in his box, the countries that had initially agreed to sanctions starting looking for ways to bypass the sanctions. The Oil-for-Food schemes were their mechanism for getting past these sanctions. Kofi Annan was a bystander in the initial imposition of sanctions, but was in charge of making sure that the Oil-for-Food program ran without Saddam benefitting from it. Instead, he turned it into his personal piggy-bank.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-11-22 10:39:23 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2004-11-22 10:39:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 Kofi Annan sucks the life out of everything he gets his dirty little mitts on , then blames it on everyone else , whilst pretending to go on a world crusade to help all . The man is an incompetent lying backstabbing arselicking shit head and should be removed from his position as soon as is feasibly possible . Over the years he has been in charge of the toothless tiger we call U.N. he has acheived nothing of note , and should be put down . I dont need bullshit facts to see whats black and white . He's a moron .

Any questions Mike ?
Posted by MacNails 2004-11-22 10:43:16 AM||   2004-11-22 10:43:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 or rather he's an incompetent moron
Posted by MacNails 2004-11-22 10:56:12 AM||   2004-11-22 10:56:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 I'll repeat my question about Mike S -- and I'm not interested in anything he says until I get a semi-plausible answer:

Why is Mike S obsessed with white-washing the following: the oil-for-money-for-terrorism UN, the bribery- and genocide-enabler Kofi Annan, as well as traitors at the CIA?
Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2004-11-22 11:10:00 AM|| [http://radio.weblogs.com/0103811/categories/currentEvents/]  2004-11-22 11:10:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#30 Does Mike S's defense of the UN remind anybody of the weirdo defense of Saddam and Iraq offered up by Scott Ritter?

What stake have you got in that whorehouse, Mike? You on the salary or something?
Posted by Laurence of the Rats  2004-11-22 11:20:31 AM|| [http://www.punictreachery.com/]  2004-11-22 11:20:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#31 In #9, Mike asks me:

If you had been in Kofi Annan's position when the Hutus began massacring the Tutis in Rwanda, what would you have done differently?

If I were the UNSG, I would convened the Security Council immediately and called for UN action to stop the genocide. I would have pounded my shoe on the lectern if necessary.

If I were the POTUS, I would have promised a brigade of airborne for the relief mission, to start moving in 72 hr with or without the support of any other nation.

If the USA had sent in one airborne brigade to stop the massacre, and if that force turned out to be insufficient, then would you have supported sending in a second brigade?

Yes. You send whatever it takes to get the job done. And you make sure the job is well-defined. It would have been in Rwanda -- shoot anyone wielding a machete.
Posted by Steve White  2004-11-22 11:21:49 AM||   2004-11-22 11:21:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#32 The picture tells all that needs to be said. Two corrupt, empty hearted, common thieves. History will show that. But right now those facts are slow in coming out completely. Why, is there something that smells? The ugly thing is coming out and lets see how the perps play it out. With big ol toothy smiles, a brave face, a clintonian tour de force.

Common low-life thiefs. All their lifes work trashed. But I hope they get the new Jag.
Posted by Lucky 2004-11-22 12:23:59 PM||   2004-11-22 12:23:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Logically, the BBC's OFF article decides to focus on Australia.
Posted by lex 2004-11-22 2:53:59 PM||   2004-11-22 2:53:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 The Lefties are starting up their "It was discovered on Dubya's watch, ergo Dubya did it" blamegame, besides also STILL criticizing Condi Rice as Dubya's surreal, potential girlfriend-mistress, ala antebellum South, "AUNT JEMIMA" and "MANDINGO", etc. As O'REILLY's substitute host asked this morning, "WHAT THE H*** IS THE LEFT DOING/UP TO?" by all of these never-ending, asinine, anti-Americanist criticisms and allegations!? Take a clue from Kerry's rants about BUsh impsoing FASCISM and GOP/RIGHTIST XTREMISM UPON AMERICA, i.e. FASCISM = RADICAL ISLAM = WORKING FOR, OR CONTROLLED BY, COMMUNISM, BUT COMMUNISM IS INNOCENT BECAUSE THE FORMER IS "WITH COMMUNISM" BUT NOT "OF COMMUNISM" - read, clandestine PC "Useful Idiots" to be purged or destroyed later!
Posted by JosephMendiola  2004-11-22 10:35:49 PM|| [http://n/a]  2004-11-22 10:35:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Joe, take the blue pill. For the love of GOD take the blue pill
Posted by Frank G  2004-11-22 10:37:57 PM||   2004-11-22 10:37:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 
Re #31 (Steve White)
Thanks for your response, Steve. I consider your attitude to be consistent and respectable.
.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-22 11:22:55 PM||   2004-11-22 11:22:55 PM|| Front Page Top

00:06 josephmendiola
00:05 Floting Granter5198
23:59 Mike Sylwester
23:52 mojo
23:50 .com
23:48 3dc
23:42 mojo
23:32 lex
23:29 Mike Sylwester
23:22 Mike Sylwester
23:22 someone
23:21 someone
23:11 PBMcL
23:02 Frank G
23:00 Alaska Paul
22:57 Wo
22:56 Poison Reverse
22:53 Poison Reverse
22:41 Dishman
22:37 Frank G
22:36 Frank G
22:35 JosephMendiola
22:31 Darth VAda
22:31 Alaska Paul

Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
3.214.184.223

Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com