Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Oil-For-Food 'Scandal' is a Cynical Smokescreen

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
cal04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-04 12:19 AM
Original message
The Oil-For-Food 'Scandal' is a Cynical Smokescreen
Scott Ritter
United States Senators, led by the Republican Norm Coleman, have launched a crusade of sorts, seeking to "expose" the oil-for-food programme implemented by the United Nations from 1996 until 2003 as the "greatest scandal in the history of the UN". But this posturing is nothing more than a hypocritical charade, designed to shift attention away from the debacle of George Bush's self-made quagmire in Iraq, and legitimise the invasion of Iraq by using Iraqi corruption, and not the now-missing weapons of mass destruction, as the excuse.

The oil-for-food programme was derived from the US-sponsored Security Council resolution, passed in April 1995 but not implemented until December 1996. During this time, the CIA sponsored two coup attempts against Saddam, the second, most famously, a joint effort with the British that imploded in June 1996, at the height of the "oil for food" implementation negotiations. The oil-for-food programme was never a sincere humanitarian relief effort, but rather a politically motivated device designed to implement the true policy of the United States - regime change.

Through various control mechanisms, the United States and Great Britain were able to turn on and off the flow of oil as they saw best. In this way, the Americans were able to authorise a $1bn exemption concerning the export of Iraqi oil for Jordan, as well as legitimise the billion-dollar illegal oil smuggling trade over the Turkish border, which benefited NATO ally Turkey as well as fellow regime-change plotters in Kurdistan. At the same time as US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was negotiating with Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov concerning a Russian-brokered deal to end a stand-off between Iraq and the UN weapons inspectors in October-November 1997, the United States turned a blind eye to the establishment of a Russian oil company set up on Cyprus.

This oil company, run by Primakov's sister, bought oil from Iraq under "oil for food" at a heavy discount, and then sold it at full market value to primarily US companies, splitting the difference evenly with Primakov and the Iraqis. This US-sponsored deal resulted in profits of hundreds of million of dollars for both the Russians and Iraqis, outside the control of "oil for food". It has been estimated that 80 per cent of the oil illegally smuggled out of Iraq under "oil for food" ended up in the United States.


http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1212-23.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
vpigrad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-04 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
1. Ah Ha!
> 80 per cent of the oil illegally smuggled out of Iraq under "oil for food" ended up in the United States.

And as usual, all the evidence points right back to Bushie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-04 01:12 AM
Response to Original message
2. hilarious watching freepers froth about "food for oil"
the illegal, immoral piece of shit war means nothing to them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CHIMO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-04 01:29 AM
Response to Original message
3. Well Guess What
Would have happened if the UN had said that Iraq now met the criteria for removing the sanctions. Does anyone think that Saddam would have turned to the US to rebuild his country?
So what does one do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ze_dscherman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-04 05:54 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. There were numerous moves to end the sanctions
But the U.S. and U.K. always threatened to veto any decision to lift or ease the sanctions.


http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/may1998/iraq-m1.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
checks-n-balances Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-04 01:39 AM
Response to Original message
4. It's also a move to discredit the UN in the eyes of the general public
But not all of us will be fooled.

Scott Ritter is right, and as I recall, he was the first to speak out publicly that there were no WMDs there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-04 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
6. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
thebigidea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-04 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. a word to the wiseguy
Edited on Mon Dec-13-04 10:33 AM by thebigidea
skeletons like... oh, being right?

What say we take a stroll through YOUR closet, hmmm?

Besides, even if he fucked pigs while snorting lines of coke off the backs of 8 year old Thai boys, he wouldn't approach the bone/closet ratio of such fine Americans as Bernard Kerik. Ha!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-04 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-04 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Right... and the Clintons robbed the White House before they left, too...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC