U.N. Oil-for-Food Scandal

[ucrzymofo87]

Here is a pop quiz for everyone:

Question #1: What countries most tried to block the removal of Saddam Hussein?

Question #2: What countries got the most kickbacks from the oil-for-food scandal?

Answer to pop quiz Question #1: France and Russia.

Answer to pop quiz Question #2: France and Russia.

Well, I'll be darned! The countries that most tried to block the removal of Saddam also got the most kickbacks from the oil-for-food scandal! One more pop quiz question...

Question #3: Who do the left want us most to get along with?

Well, I'll be damned, it's the same two countries: France and Russia!

Russia harboured the most companies involved in the programme, followed by France, according to the inquiry led by Paul Volcker, a former chairman of the US Federal Reserve Board.

Despite international sanctions, the scheme turned into a corrupt free-for-all with 4,500 companies competing for a slice of the business.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 32,00.html

[Killfile]

Here's another pop quiz.

Section A:

1 - Why were we told we had to invade Iraq?
2 - What were the nature of the ties between Iraq and Osama bin Laden?
3 - How many Weapons of Mass Desctruction did we find in Iraq?
4 - What/Who got more air time during the 2004 GOP convention? Iraq or bin Laden?

Section B:

1 - What countries, exactly, does the Left want us to go to war with?
2 - How much money does the Bush Whithouse claim was grafted off of the Oil for Food program? How much money did the Oil for Food program actually take in? What percentage of Oil for Food revenues were thus dispersed through corrupt channels?




Answers
Section A:
1 - We were told we had to prevent Iraq from giving its weapons of mass destruction to al Queda with which it had strong ties.
2 - The 911 commission was unable to find any evience of any ties between Iraq and al Queda. Representives of both had agreed that their goals and objectives were incompatable while the US was still financing al Queda under the Regan administration.
3 - None. Nada, zip, zilch, zero, nix, nill, not a bleeding one. Every so often a news story would turn up of a suspected find, but nothing was ever confirmed.
4 - Iraq was mentioned hundreds of time in connection to the 911 attacks. Bin Laden was mentioned.... wait for it.... twice. And never on camera. The descripency was (and I'm not making this up) more than 17,000%

Section B:
1 - No one. Violence is the last refuge of the incompitant.
2 - Claimed graft: 21.3 Billion. Total income: 6.5 Billion. Thus, according to the Bush Administration, 327% of the money taken in by the Oil for Food program was distributed illegally. And we wonder why he failed economics at Yale.

Oil for food has nothing to do with this. We didn't go to war in Iraq over oil for food. We went to war in Iraq because Bush's base has wanted war in Iraq for decades. Want further evidence? The US Senate found ""The United States 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 United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales." (source)

[ucrzymofo87]

If you were able to connect the dots about the entire story, you would realize that the two countries most opposed to the war, France and Russia, were benefiting ILLEGALLY from oil profits. They were breaking the thing liberals value most, international law, but the left seems to ignore when France and Russia break the law.

The major point is that the UN is the most corrupt organization on the planet. I hope when Congress uncovers all of the illegal profits that went to France, Russia, and Kofi Annan's son, that they cut money to the UN and force them to change how they operate. The UN of today has become the League of Nations of yesteryear.

[Eldo]

You can't really connect the dots with this story while relating it with the Iraq war. I was against the war in Iraq (Australia participated with US to get some major brownie points) but that doesn't make me a Saddam Hussien sympathiser. It's a very radical approach of thinking about it. There were other names mentioned in the report, like Volvo, Siemens, Daimler Chrrysler, but that doesn't mean that the Swedish and German have anything to do with that. I think you're overlooking the rest of the companies mentioned in the report and focused primarily on France and Russia. I still don't really get why the countries in entirety is to blame for that, the ones who did the deed were from companies from that country only, not sufficient proof to establish that they're complete arseholes and link it with the Iraq War.

[Killfile]

Sigh. Let me explain this in small words.

The Oil for Food program allowed Iraq to sell oil very cheaply in exchange for food and other important supplies so as to prevent the sanctions from having a horrific human cost in Iraq.

The program became corrupt when Saddam realized that he got to choose which companies got the oil contracts, and thus, which companies secured oil supplies below market values. Saddam knew he could demand kick backs from the companies buying the oil because he could always sell it to someone else.

Now, you point out that Russia and France were making loads of money off of this, and that's true. Russia and France were, like every other country involved, paying the Iraqi regime for the right to buy cheep oil. But the US Senate found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together. (source)

So yes, the Liberals don't think that we should be all that upset with France and Russia for benefiting from the Oil for Food program given that we exploited the program more than those two countries put together.

So once again a conservative shows himself to be little more than a hypocritical toady of industrial warmongers. I'm waiting to be stunned.

[ucrzymofo87]

Firstly, it would appear that your facts are incorrect

http://www.nationalreview.com/rosett/ro ... 130832.asp

A number of investigations, including several conducted by the U.S. Congress, have by now reported that Saddam used this latitude to try to buy influence. Russia became his number one U.N.-approved trading partner, followed immediately by France — with which Saddam did more than $7 billion in U.N.-approved deals.

The United States was the largest oil purchaser. Russia, China, and France were the biggest sellers of illegal arms and military equipment to Iraq, another UN sanction violation. The US did not sell arms to Iraq after the Gulf War, only the aforementioned nations did.

http://www.taraskuzio.net/media/iraq_ar ... 0to%20iraq'

But I would like you to ponder this for a moment. If the U.S. had not liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein, these lucrative deals would still be going on. These corrupt companies, regardless of their nationality, violated the law. Had the United States and Great Britain not had the courage to do the right thing and stop Saddam Hussein, these international corporations would have been making millions in illegal profits, oil or otherwise.

It's amazing how the left said this war was for oil, when gas prices are at an all time high in the US. I don't hear the "No War for Oil" mantra screamed very much anymore. Why is that?

[arke]

But I would like you to ponder this for a moment. If the U.S. had not liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein, these lucrative deals would still be going on. These corrupt companies, regardless of their nationality, violated the law. Had the United States and Great Britain not had the courage to do the right thing and stop Saddam Hussein, these international corporations would have been making millions in illegal profits, oil or otherwise.

Exactly. Fucking Russian and French companies taking all of the money. We need good ol` red-blooded American companies taking all of the money instead.

It's amazing how the left said this war was for oil, when gas prices are at an all time high in the US. I don't hear the "No War for Oil" mantra screamed very much anymore. Why is that?

Strange, I remember paying the least in two months last Monday.

[Eldo]

Actually, didn't you guys have all time low gas prices during and after the Iraq war? I remember people complaining about that, here in Australia we had a dollar per litre, and you guys were like having more than half of that (like 20 cents or something).

[Killfile]

Wow. Not only can I slam dunk the question about the war being about Oil (it was), I can do so with a post I wrote to my Blog MONTHS ago)

Posted at 12:03 am - Mar 15th, 2005 : With gas prices up another $0.25/galon this week, there's a lot of talk going on about the war in Iraq, the war for oil, and how oil pricing works. Chiming into this lively discussion are the typical neo-cons who consistently reiterate the argument that the Iraq war wasn't about oil. Boiled down and with all the fluff removed it goes like this.

1 – It's less expensive to just buy the oil than to invade

2 – We've been in “control” of Iraq for over a year now, yet gas is still about $2.00 at the pump.

The lie in this argument is subtle. It's part of the assumptions the reader takes on when he sees it. We assume that the accusation “the Iraq war was about oil” is another way of saying “we invaded Iraq to lower the price of oil.” It just isn't so.

Look back at the events that surrounded the invasion of Iraq. There is a fair bit of economic theory (supplied by my lovely wife) involved here, but I'll try to spell it out.

First, realize that the dollar is the de facto currency of the world right now. While the US relinquished economic hegemony (don't ask) in the 1970s, most everyone still uses dollars as a handy medium of exchange. This is a good thing for the United States, which can, of course, print dollars. Moreover, this means that fluctuations in the value of the dollar affect other countries and not the United States. E.G. - If the dollar goes up against the Yen and Japan has to buy something with dollars it will pay more Yen for it. The US won't pay more dollars for it because the dollar can't go up or down against itself.

The dollar is, of course, the currency for oil as well. At least it was until October of 2000 when Iraq was told it could sell oil through the oil for food program in Euros instead of dollars.

Now, with the dollar falling and Saudi Arabia already selling oil in Euros, imagine the consequences of this shift for the United States. Between Iraq and Saudi Arabia we're talking about the majority of the world's oil reserves. Selling for Euros rather than Dollars means that, when the Euro goes up, American buying power in the middle east goes down. Suddenly the fluctuations of US currency have real meaning at the pump.

Now take this scenario a step further. The value of a currency is no longer based on the amount of gold that the country has stashed away in a vault somewhere (Fort Knox is more or less meaningless today). Currencies are valued by what people are willing to trade for them. It's a lot like the stock market really. If enough people think that the number of individuals who want to have dollars will go up between now and next Tuesday, the value of the dollar will rise as those individuals buy up dollars in hopes of selling them on Tuesday. Again, this is exactly how the stock market works.

What's different is that, while the stock market operates in millions of shares of stock, the international currency market operates in trillions of dollars, yen, euros, and whatever else is being traded. That means that to have any real impact you have to be trading in the tens of billions of dollars. Not a lot of private investors do that, but countries can wield that kind of power.

Ownership of US debt is one of many ways a country can buy dollars. Rather than simply sending the prime minister of Japan to the bank to change the contents of his wallet from Yen to Dollars, Japan can simply purchase a huge quantity of US Treasury Bills. These bills are, for all intents and purposes, dollars.

Of course, Japan isn’t the only one doing the buying. South Korea, China, and lots of other countries hold huge amounts of US Debt. Some (including China) hold enough that should they decide to dump their dollars on the open market, the value of US currency would evaporate overnight.

Consider then how this fits into the Iraq invasion picture. As Bush alienates the rest of the world by leading an ideological crusade against everything in sight world opinion starts to shift away form the US. Europe, its economy finally properly recovered from the devastation of World War II is on the rise, newly united and economically stronger than ever. China decides to drop its dollars for euros.

Oil prices skyrocket as the value of the Euro explodes and the dollar is reduced to a shadow of its former self. Forced to buy oil in Euros, the US must first trade its shattered currency against the revitalized euro for every barrel.

These are the makings of an economic disaster. Invasion of Iraq secures, under US control, a dependable source of oil. Should a dollar dump occur, the US will still suffer and her economy will still reel from the blow. Control of Iraq may be the difference between an ugly economic battle and a one hit knock out punch.

Where will this go? You’ll need to ask people smarter than me. But if you think the war in Iraq wasn’t about oil, you’ve got another thing coming.

I could probably change the name of this thread to "Killfile shoots down right wing propaganda" but that might be a bit to self serving.

The war in Iraq was, quite simply, to make sure the Dollar, not the Euro pervailed as the currency of the world's oil market. The United States could not afford to consume 30-40% of the world oil reserves if it had to pay in Euros.

As to why the price of oil is lower now than it was during the early days of the Iraq occupation. (Wow, I can't belive I have to point this out). Do you have any idea how much GAS a tank consumes? How about a tank division.... a fighter wing.... a non-nuclear supply ship. How about how much gas the full military might of the United States of America, the world's last remaining superpower consumes?

I'll give you a hint. At least $0.75/gallon at the pump. The US being at war drives up the price of oil world wide.

Want to know why it's so cheep now? Bush opened the strategic oil reserves after Katrina.

[d-boy]

Iraq now proved 100% unguilty in make mass weapon they just lie from which made by two idiot leader ( Bush and Blair ), in Sadam leadership they managed to prevent extrem people rules Iraq. Bush want to attack Iraq because Sadam change they oil price in Euro and due rapid development of China oil demand from market increased but supply was decrease, so he need make a doll goverment in Iraq with that he will control number two oil exporter country.
But they make a big mistakes; first they made federal country like US that idiot don`t know that Iraq contain many tribe who already war in centuries when Europe and America still have low civilitation, federal have one mean for them, all recourses just for their own tribe not for other. The low recourses province will feel suffer and later Iraq will occur big civil war thanks for that two idiot leader; second they give too many power to Syiah, and Syiah is one of the most extrem sect in Islam. All of you must be know Iran, Isn`t it ? Maybe now they make a sweat face but when US army leave they will change again their face; third now Al Qaidah managed make new camp in Iraq because now they supported by local militia that thing never ever they get in Sadam era

[ucrzymofo87]

Wow, Your grammar shames your point. I didn't get anything intelligible out of that.

The Euro is higher than the dollar, so the idea that the war was perpetrated to secure its standing isn't true.

Oil price is at an all time HIGH in the United States, hence not a war for oil. Your blog is wrong, gas prices are around 3 dollars per gallon.

And it is also amazing that the left cannot have a legitimate debate without saying dissention from their views is propaganda. The left conjures up all of these conspiracy theories about how the war is for oil, but the people who are arbitrating the conspiracy are idiots (i.e. George W Bush and Tony Blair), and somehow that is not propaganda?

During the 1980s, the same people who say George Bush went to war for oil said that Ronald Reagan had a secret pact with the Vatican to declare nuclear war on the Soviet Union. Needless to say, that was also untrue. Whenever liberals start potificating about conspiracies, don't listen.

[Killfile]

The Euro is higher than the dollar, so the idea that the war was perpetrated to secure its standing isn't true.

Oil price is at an all time HIGH in the United States, hence not a war for oil. Your blog is wrong, gas prices are around 3 dollars per gallon.

Is that seriously your argument? Really? Ok, I guess I'll have to use smaller words for you. Perhaps bullet points will help.

1 - Oil is presently purchased in dollars. If Japan wants oil they have to buy dollars with their Yen (possibly at a bad exchange rate for them) and then buy oil with dollars. That makes oil more expensive in Japan.

2 - Saudi Arabia was selling oil in Euros as well as dollars. Iraq started selling oil in Euros as well. Together, those two countries represent more than 50% of the known oil reserves.

3 - The risk, therefore, is that if more than 50% of the oil sold is sold in Euros, the dollar will loose its status as the currency that you buy oil with. If that were to happen, we would have to buy Euros with our dollars (at a very bad exchange rate right now) and oil would become VERY expensive in the United States.

4 - Therefore we went to war in Iraq to prevent Iraq from selling oil in Euros anymore, thus securing the future of US oil purchases and the future of the dollar.

Now you make a number of very poorly reasoned points against this argument, which I'll correct for you.

1 - The Euro is higher than the dollar, therefore my point is false: No, therefore my point is true. If the Euro were weaker than the dollar then we could buy LOTS of Euros for our dollars and, in theory, we could buy MORE oil. You're only proving that you have no idea how international currency exchange works.

2 - Oil prices are at an all time high, thus not a war for oil: Good conservative, just repeat the same lie over and over and it will be true. Sorry, that's not the way it works. Oil prices are at an all time high because world wide oil demand is going up. The war in Iraq was to prevent the price of oil from going further up than that. We went into Iraq in anticipation of higher oil prices and successfully kept that from happening.

3 - My blog is wrong, gas is $3 a gallon. My blog was written in March, as is obvious from the timestamp. Learn to read.

I didn't say Bush or Blair were idiots. Bush, like Andrew Jackson, has a cleverly crafted air of the "common man" which has served him well in politics. Bush is the son of a wealthy family, educated at Yale, and raised in the American Aristocracy. Look back at his debate videos for the governorship of Texas. Bush is well spoken, articulate, and very bright.

The Redneck persona is simply there because it is an undisputed tautology in American politics that the smartest guy seldom wins.

During the 1980s, the same people who say George Bush went to war for oil said that Ronald Reagan had a secret pact with the Vatican to declare nuclear war on the Soviet Union. Needless to say, that was also untrue. Whenever liberals start pontificating about conspiracies, don't listen.

This is an example of a typical right wing lie. First of all, less than 50% of the country thinks it's a good idea that we're in Iraq right now. That 50% is the 50% that knows the war wasn't about WMDs (because there are none), wasn't about human rights (because we're torturing people) and wasn't about democracy (because we don't give a shit anywhere else). So…

Given that we didn't find the weapons.
Given that we condone the torture of prisoners.
Given that we are not willing to intervene for democracy elsewhere and have knocked over democratically elected leaders world wide who disagreed with us....

Given all that, what's the war about again? What's the ONLY THING that separates Iraq from -- say -- North Korea? Oh that’s right, oil.

Saying this war is about oil isn’t a conspiracy theory. Saying Bush is controlled by his father’s CIA friends through a radio transmitter implanted in his ass is a conspiracy theory. Countries have gone to war over oil in the past. It’s politically unpopular to say that in this country, so the only portion of my argument that’s remotely conspiratorial is that a politician would lie.

You don’t think that’s uncommon do you?

You can't paint these people into a corner. There are serious and legitimate doubts about why we went into Iraq. Saying it's for oil is one of the kinder explanations. Given that the President has given us literally no satisfactory explanation that doesn't collapse under the weight of scrutiny, the speculation that this is personal revenge for Saddam ordering a hit on W's daddy is just as valid.

Now lets see if you can read, understand, and respond to my points. Thus far, you've only succeeded in repeating the "Big Lie." International politics is a complex business, and can't often be boiled down to one sentence quips. Until you learn that, you're not ready to leave the kid's table.

[psi29a]

Wow, this is turning into some good pwning. My points of view aside, I think Killfile has put up a solid defense.

Flame on!

d-boy: if you haven't anything constructive to type, then stop posting. You do yourself a great injustice by ranting off-topic. This is about oil-for-food scandal, not so much why we want to bash bush, blair, the war in iraq, or the various factions that can't wait for the occupation force to leave, nor is it about Islamic extremists trying to make training camps and in-roads into Iraq. All of which are interesting topics, but are wholly irrelevant to this topic. please pick the correct topic before posting or follow along with the current thread. thank you.

[ucrzymofo87]

International politics is a complex business, and can't often be boiled down to one sentence quips.

I think Ronald Reagan put it best in simple terms regarding the Cold War when he said his strategy for winning it was, "We win, they lose."

And this is why people are scared of George W. Bush and his "war for oil." They are afraid because he is stating that the way to winning the war on terrorism is "We win, they lose." The left can NEVER accept a moral reason for undertaking military action because their knee-jerk reaction, mind you only when a Republican is in power, is to oppose it.

I believe, as the majority of the people in this country do, morally, liberating Iraq was the right thing to do. This man, Saddam Hussein, was putting people into meat grinders feet first so they could hear themselves die. His torture agents would attach electrical wires to people's genitals, nail people's tongues to wooden boards, and rape women while their husbands watched. Today, Iraq no longer has torture chambers, thanks to the courage of Tony Blair and George Bush. Iraq is electing its own government and is on the road to a stable democracy. In ten years, Iraq will be a friendly democratic nation and will still retain its valued Islamic heritage, and all the liberal nuts who wanted to surrender and run away should never be listened to again.

P.S. and for the record, I was addressing d-boy when he said Bush and Blair were idiots, maybe you should learn to read, Killfile.

[Killfile]

I think Ronald Reagan put it best in simple terms regarding the Cold War when he said his strategy for winning it was, "We win, they lose."

That's not a strategy. That's an outcome. Strategies are a method of bringing something about.... not simply stating that which you wish to induce.

And this is why people are scared of George W. Bush and his "war for oil." They are afraid because he is stating that the way to winning the war on terrorism is "We win, they lose." The left can NEVER accept a moral reason for undertaking military action because their knee-jerk reaction, mind you only when a Republican is in power, is to oppose it.

What? I don't recall a great deal of lefist protest to the first Iraq war. I don't recall the left protesting Regan's surgical strike on Quadafi after the bombing of Pam Am 103.

Since you brought up the "war on terrorism" I'm curious if you can tell me, prior to 2003, how many terrorist attacks against the United States have originated from within the national boundaries of Iraq.

What the left can't accept is a war for profit, a war for greed, and a war of conquest. The cost in CIVILIAN lives alone in Iraq exceeds 30,000 persons. What did these people die for? The United States is more secure, more free, or more powerful today than it was on January 1, 2003.

I believe, as the majority of the people in this country do, morally, liberating Iraq was the right thing to do.

Actually, as of today, no clear majority exists. Exactly 49% of the country thinks that liberating Iraq was the right thing to do. The polling numbers before that indicated that only 39% believed that before the vote on the constitution, which would tend to indicate that this positive bump is from the press that got, and will likely soon drop away. (source)Interesting how you have to resort to making up facts to defend your point.

His torture agents would attach electrical wires to people's genitals, nail people's tongues to wooden boards, ... Today, Iraq no longer has torture chambers, thanks to the courage of Tony Blair and George Bush.

Well, actually there are no torture chambers (that we know of) in Iraq today because some soldiers at Abu Grahab had digital cameras.... but the Bush administration and Donald Rumsfeld recently ordered those cameras confiscated. (source)

Iraq is electing its own government and is on the road to a stable democracy. In ten years, Iraq will be a friendly democratic nation and will still retain its valued Islamic heritage, and all the liberal nuts who wanted to surrender and run away should never be listened to again.

Historical factoid: Not once, not once in all of human history has Democracy been successfully imposed upon a country in which it did not develop organically. As to what you're suggesting - the very foundations of democracy rest upon the idea that the opinion of the minority, no matter how unpopular, is valued and listened to. The world you describe, jokingly or otherwise, is a totalitarian, one-party state - not altogether unlike the Soviet Union.

That's very Bolshevik of you.

P.S. and for the record, I was addressing d-boy when he said Bush and Blair were idiots, maybe you should learn to read, Killfile.

You didn't make that terribly clear. You should learn to write. When addressing different people in the same thread, it is customary to prefix your statements with their handle.

[ucrzymofo87]

Historical factoid: Not once, not once in all of human history has Democracy been successfully imposed upon a country in which it did not develop organically. As to what you're suggesting - the very foundations of democracy rest upon the idea that the opinion of the minority, no matter how unpopular, is valued and listened to. The world you describe, jokingly or otherwise, is a totalitarian, one-party state - not altogether unlike the Soviet Union.

That's very Bolshevik of you.

My gosh, you're off your nut. I have not said the world should be a one-party totalitarian state. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

I don't recall a great deal of lefist protest to the first Iraq war. I don't recall the left protesting Regan's surgical strike on Quadafi after the bombing of Pam Am 103.

http://www.socialistworker.org/2003-1/4 ... fWar.shtml

Some 30,000 protested in Seattle, and 10,000 people came out and blocked Lake Shore Drive in Chicago. In San Francisco, more than 100,000 people occupied the Bay Bridge for six full hours... Three days into bombing, 80,000 people turned out in San Francisco and 40,000 in Washington, D.C., for a national mobilization. The following weekend, another national day of protest saw 200,000 march in Washington and more than 100,000 in San Francisco.

That looks like a great deal of protest if you ask me.

Well, actually there are no torture chambers (that we know of) in Iraq today because some soldiers at Abu Grahab had digital cameras.... but the Bush administration and Donald Rumsfeld recently ordered those cameras confiscated.

I am glad that these soldiers were found out to be abusing prisoners. I think torture in any form is wrong. I would like you to say you are glad Saddam is gone and isn't able to torture people in the manners I described any longer either, but I won't hold my breath.

That's not a strategy. That's an outcome. Strategies are a method of bringing something about.... not simply stating that which you wish to induce.

Liberals undermined Reagan for being too simplistic in foreign affairs, the same way they undermine Bush today.

P.S. I think we should rename this thread Killfile and ucrzymofo 87 debate the issues

[Killfile]

Once you start denouncing all of the ideas that come from a particular point of view simply because you do not share that point of view - yes - advocating a totolitarian state is exactly what you're doing - just not in so many words.

There are inevitably people that protest wars. Being Leftist has very little to do with this, being pacifist has a great deal to do with it. I'm not saying that most pacificsts aren't also leftists, but that not all lefists are pacifists.

This obviously didn't come out well in my previous post. I don't consider the "peace at any price" crowd terribly representive of the progressive movement.

It's also worth noteing that the source you quote from would seem to have a pretty strong interest in overstating the number of people involved.

Am I glad Saddam isn't there anymore? Yes. The world is unquestionably a better place now that Saddam is no longer in charge of anything bigger than an 8x9 cell. That said, just because Saddam was a monster, doens't make the war about humanitarian causes. It is a convenient benfit of invading Iraq that a dictator was deposed, but the Bush administration has suffered Genocide to pass unheaded while pretending to give a shit about human rights.

Lets stop kidding outselves. If Darfur possessed oil, we'd have been in there years ago. Since it is a resource poor area of the world, the lives of the hundreds of thousands who have died there are of little consequence to this administration.

Failures like that demonstrate this administration's contempt of human rights. Our sons and daughters aren't dieing in Iraq to free it's people, they're dieing in Iraq to keep gas prices low. If this were a moral war, I doubt you'd see so much protest.

[ucrzymofo87]

Once you start denouncing all of the ideas that come from a particular point of view simply because you do not share that point of view - yes - advocating a totolitarian state is exactly what you're doing - just not in so many words.

Last time I checked, that was called freedom of speech. Simply arbitrating a debate about ideas is not advocating totalitarianism. I would have thought a man of your intelligence would have understood that debate is part of democracy. As you have previously said, it is important to hear all points of view.

Failures like that demonstrate this administration's contempt of human rights.

So, if I understand this correctly, if George Bush sent troops to Darfur, you would support it? What about other nations that have abhorent human rights records like North Korea?

[Killfile]

Are you reading what I'm writing or just reacting to specific sentences? I'm not, nor have I ever, suggested that you don't have the right to say things like "all the liberal nuts who wanted to surrender and run away should never be listened to again.” What I said is that the ideological point of view you hold, one that is willing to shut out other viewpoints as irrelevant or unwelcome simply because they conflict with your own -- that point of view is what brings about totalitarian states like the Soviet Union.

In a free society you still have the right to say and think things like that -- and I would never deny you that right, which is why I've never suggested that your words or your point of view are irrelevant and why I'm concerned about those words and views. That said, the views you expressed are inherently contradictory to the concept of transparency, democracy, and public discourse.

Moving along...

Yes, if George W. Bush sent troops into Darfur today I would publicly cheer him for it. I'd probably write up a blog post about what an astoundingly great military and humanitarian decision that was and express my shock that his administration, which I had assumed simply didn't give a shit about Africa, was willing to step up and do the right thing.

While I'd like to see us lean diplomatically on North Korea for its abhorrent human rights violations, I understand that there are more trouble spots world wide than we can handle with our limited conventional military. Darfur (which is, by the way, not a nation but a region of the Sudan) is in the midst of a genocide. Millions have been systematically exterminated in the region and the killing shows no signs of letting up. While North Korea needs to be addressed for humanitarian issues, the ongoing genocide in Darfur is by far a more pressing matter, and our failure to deal with it swiftly is a violation of our obligations under the charter of the United Nations.

Unfortunately, I think the chances of us seeing US, NATO, or UN troops in Darfur anytime soon is very slim. Instead, Mr. Bush chose to use the political clout of the United States to drag a bunch of militarily irrelevant countries (and the UK) into a conflict that, while possessed on merit on the human rights front, is not even remotely towards the top of what anyone would call a prioritized list.

Removing Saddam form power, for whatever reason, has made the world a safer place... but given the limited resources, both political and military, that the US has to work with, far more good could have been accomplished if we had kept our priorities straight.

Since you will undoubtedly characterize me as a typical liberal and say I'm only saying these things because W. is in office -- let me point this out.

During the Clinton Presidency, a genocide took place in Rwanda. The United States sat by and did nothing. While I considered Clinton's indiscretions with Monica inappropriate and unprofessional, and his testimony on the matter unconscionable; his unwillingness to intervene in Rwanda remains, in my eyes, his greatest failing as a world leader.

In all honesty, if we had dealt with everyone who posed a greater threat to human rights than Saddam, I would have fully and whole heartedly supported first diplomatic, then economic, and finally (if totally necessary) military measures to ensure that the people of Iraq were safe. As it is, there were (and are) bigger fish to fry, and we completely and totally failed to exhaust our diplomatic and economic options before resorting to war.

[Necromancer]

Oh my, a few days not here and you two start your private political forum war.

And I really don't like the idead of talking about Bush as if he is a hero.