Probe: Saddam Made $21B From U.N. Program

[Outspoken]

[/font]

OK, I will have to concede that point then, Saddam, technically would be considered a terrorist. He used terror tactics to rule his own people (basically every dictator has). Do keep in mind however that he was only a threat to his own people, which were not our allies. So when talking about the Iraq war, it should not have been on our priorities, there were many other much more serious threats.

While not to the same severity, so has Bush. He has preyed upon the fears of the masses to help his own position.

Oh, so we don't help anyone that is not a POLITICAL ally of the US..got ya..nope sorry not the US' policy. I disagree, He as not used terrorism tacts, and I think its in pretty poor taste to try and pin that on him. No where has he said, do this or I'll come murder you.



Oh, uberlib..if you're reading this..THIS is where you use the parable of the good samaritin (sp?).

 

[JVD]

This Bush=Saddam, Bush=Hitler, Bush=Satan by Liberals or far-left Europeans is so dumb. It really shows that these people must be totally clueless.

The oil for food corruption and the UN's refusal to come clean with it shows that it is completely useless as a world body. An organization that corrupt should not be supported. Any support for a group like that is a waste of good people's money.

The US and any other supporting country should independently support world needs that they see and that they can directly help. Until we can get a transparent world organization we shuold stop spending money on it.

 

[Vylo]

Oh Bush != Hitler or even Saddam, but he definetly shares some of the less desirable traits.

Oh, so we don't help anyone that is not a POLITICAL ally of the US

Our allies should be our priorities.

 

[Outspoken]

Oh Bush != Hitler or even Saddam, but he definetly shares some of the less desirable traits.

[/font]

Our allies should be our priorities.

Okay....so turn your back on a situation were you can do some good to do nothing, none of our allies are having problems with terrorism of that magnitude. Thus your arugment here is invalid.

 

[Vylo]

I should have said us and our allies. Do not forget there are a multitude of more serious threats to our security, including good old Osama. These should take priority over disrupting Iraq, which has now lent more fuel to those threats we could have eliminated or surpressed if we weren't in Iraq to begin with. What a country does within in itself does not warrant us going to war. We can sanction them and isolate them until they treat their people more fairly, but to declare war on them is a step too far.

 

[Outspoken]

I should have said us and our allies. Do not forget there are a multitude of more serious threats to our security, including good old Osama. These should take priority over disrupting Iraq, which has now lent more fuel to those threats we could have eliminated or surpressed if we weren't in Iraq to begin with. What a country does within in itself does not warrant us going to war. We can sanction them and isolate them until they treat their people more fairly, but to declare war on them is a step too far.

I disagree. You can fortify boarders all you want, that won't stop terrorist acts from happening. Pearl Harbor should have proven that to you.

 

[arnegrim]

I should have said us and our allies. Do not forget there are a multitude of more serious threats to our security, including good old Osama. These should take priority over disrupting Iraq, which has now lent more fuel to those threats we could have eliminated or surpressed if we weren't in Iraq to begin with. What a country does within in itself does not warrant us going to war. We can sanction them and isolate them until they treat their people more fairly, but to declare war on them is a step too far.

12+ years of sanctions and UN resolutions... and what did we get... oil-for-food scandals...

Yeah, they sure worked now didn't they...

 

[Buckeyeboy]

12+ years of sanctions and UN resolutions... and what did we get... oil-for-food scandals...

Yeah, they sure worked now didn't they...

Certainly does alot to dispel they myth held by some here that America is pure evil and the rest of the world, especial the UN, is a noble and wonderful place seeking only to make the world a better place. I'm always amazed how the more foolish among us seem so quick to berate America in every aspect, and then canonize the rest of the world as if its a righteous paradise. Truth of it is, the whole world is screwed up, America just gets more attention for it since she's the biggest kid on the block.

 

[Whyzdom]

Certainly does alot to dispel they myth held by some here that America is pure evil and the rest of the world, especial the UN, is a noble and wonderful place seeking only to make the world a better place. I'm always amazed how the more foolish among us seem so quick to berate America in every aspect, and then canonize the rest of the world as if its a righteous paradise. Truth of it is, the whole world is screwed up, America just gets more attention for it since she's the biggest kid on the block.

Absolutely... Reps... I just wish more would understand.

 

[Vylo]

I disagree. You can fortify boarders all you want, that won't stop terrorist acts from happening. Pearl Harbor should have proven that to you.

I don't see what this has to with what I have been saying. Iraq wasn't a threat, other countries were. We should have gone after them instead. Let Iraq deal with it's domestic problems. We can turn our attention to them once we have significantly lowered the threat of terrorist acts against our own nation.

12+ years of sanctions and UN resolutions... and what did we get... oil-for-food scandals...

Yeah, they sure worked now didn't they...

War isn't working either, it is being counterproductive. At minimum, the timing is entirely wrong. Iraq should have been far from the top of our list of priorities. Why attack a nation that poses no threat?

 

[Outspoken]

I don't see what this has to with what I have been saying. Iraq wasn't a threat, other countries were. We should have gone after them instead. Let Iraq deal with it's domestic problems. We can turn our attention to them once we have significantly lowered the threat of terrorist acts against our own nation.


War isn't working either, it is being counterproductive. At minimum, the timing is entirely wrong. Iraq should have been far from the top of our list of priorities. Why attack a nation that poses no threat?

"Iraq wasn't a threat, other countries were. "

I disagree. Iraq was a terrorist nation.I think it was a very good thing that we went after the terrorism there and have a great chancet to set up another democracy in the middle east.

 

[arnegrim]

War isn't working either, it is being counterproductive. At minimum, the timing is entirely wrong. Iraq should have been far from the top of our list of priorities. Why attack a nation that poses no threat?

What do you mean by 'isn't working'? Giving the Iraqis the opportunity to choose their leader democratically? Removing from power the man who toyed with the UN and international community? Removing from power the man who uses WMDs... kills and tortures his own people... finances terrorists?

Again... if Iraq posed no threat, why didn't the UN lift sanctions... why did they continue to pass resolutions... why wasn't Saddam honest about his WMD's?

 

[Buckeyeboy]

Iraq should have been far from the top of our list of priorities. Why attack a nation that poses no threat?

Unless you wanted to use it as a staging ground to launch attacks on other higher priority targets. IF you wanted to invade Iran/ Syria, or both, then taking out an Iraq thats theres for the taking makes a lot of sense strategically. It's no coincidence that Iran was listed as part of the Axis of Evil and now has US Forces on either side of it in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thats just how I see it, whether I like that or not isn't my point, I just think that was really the logic behind taking Iraq.

 

[Vylo]

What do you mean by 'isn't working'? Giving the Iraqis the opportunity to choose their leader democratically? Removing from power the man who toyed with the UN and international community? Removing from power the man who uses WMDs... kills and tortures his own people... finances terrorists?

It isn't working. People are dying by the tens of and possibly soon by the hundreds of thousands. The number of insurgents isn't decreasing. Terrorism is spreading instead of declining. We are working against the very thing we set out to do. Stop/cripple terrorism. We have substitued one man who killed his own people with thousands who might and have done the same. And where did you see Saddam funding terrorists? I never saw any evidence of that.

Again... if Iraq posed no threat, why didn't the UN lift sanctions... why did they continue to pass resolutions... why wasn't Saddam honest about his WMD's

They didn't lift the sanction so he couldn't become a threat. Why did Saddam lie? Because while he had no WMDs and no capacity to create them, he had programs prepped for restart if the sanctions were dropped.

Unless you wanted to use it as a staging ground to launch attacks on other higher priority targets. IF you wanted to invade Iran/ Syria, or both, then taking out an Iraq thats theres for the taking makes a lot of sense strategically. It's no coincidence that Iran was listed as part of the Axis of Evil and now has US Forces on either side of it in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thats just how I see it, whether I like that or not isn't my point, I just think that was really the logic behind taking Iraq.

I can see it geographically being a god strategic point, but politically it was a blunder to chose it. But yes on a geographical level it does make sense.

 

[Whyzdom]

It isn't working. People are dying by the tens of and possibly soon by the hundreds of thousands.

I think this is a slight exaggeration.

The number of insurgents isn't decreasing. Terrorism is spreading instead of declining. We are working against the very thing we set out to do. Stop/cripple terrorism. We have substitued one man who killed his own people with thousands who might and have done the same.

Actually, you are seeing more of the Terrorists coming to Iraq to fight, which means more will die. I think the war is having the desired effect.

And where did you see Saddam funding terrorists? I never saw any evidence of that.

Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers for the actions of their loved one that blew him/herself up. So yes, he was supporting terrorism in an obvious manner.

 

[Sycophant]

Actually, you are seeing more of the Terrorists coming to Iraq to fight, which means more will die. I think the war is having the desired effect.

Terrorists are not a finite force. It's not like red-heads or something, of which a certain number have been born, and that's all there are. Terrorists (and the fighters in Iraq) have not always been such - most Iraqi fighters are people who have decided to take up arms to fight an invading force. And the more are killed, the more will take up arms to avenge their friends and loved ones.

And as part of the fighting, the US is creating a situation that can be very easily exploited by true terrorists (as distinct from those fighting an invading force) to increase recruitment and it increases support for these terrorists among normal people who otherwise would not condone their acts.

The. War. On. Terror. Is. Not. A. War. Of. Attrition.
You cannot kill them all.

 

[Anduron]

Umm..I"ll bite, Iraq WAS a terrorist nation.

I second that.

 

[MaryS]

Earlier this year, Claudia Rosett of the Wall Street Journal quoted financial investigators as saying there are possible "terrorist connections" in the list of companies that did business under the Oil-for-Food program. She wrote:

"Included are a remnant of the defunct global criminal bank, BCCI, while another was close to the Taliban while bin Laden was on the rise in Afghanistan, and a third was linked to a bank in the Bahamas involved in Al Qaeda's financial network; a fourth had a close connection to one of Saddam's would-be nuclear bomb makers."

In other news stories, the Senate is requesting documents related to the oil-for-food abuse and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is stonewalling! I'd say it's time for a new UN Secretary General....maybe Bill Clinton? I think Clinton would be more fair than Kofi and hope he would not cover for Marc Rich(an American financier named in the scandal that Clinton pardoned for something I don't recall the reason for).

 

[Vylo]

Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers for the actions of their loved one that blew him/herself up. So yes, he was supporting terrorism in an obvious manner.

This isn't really supporting terrorism. He wasn't paying any terrorists, and I don't think any more people became suicide bombers because their faimly would make a buck.

 

[Outspoken]

This isn't really supporting terrorism. He wasn't paying any terrorists, and I don't think any more people became suicide bombers because their faimly would make a buck.

LOL yes it is. Its call a life insurance policy for terrorists, something people PAY FOR in the US. I can't beleive you're actually trying to justify paying terrorists to murder people. Yes, suicide bombers will sign up if their family makes a buck. Heck, most of the terrorists are making their kids do this and they are making a buck off of them.