Tal's Iraq War: Blood for Oil, Oil for Food, Food for Thought

In another thread Tal asserted that the UN was no longer relevant and that it stole 95% of the money it took in, as well as being a destructive force.When asked to provide evidence for these accusations, his response was essentially nothing more than a citation from FoxNEWS which only discussed the Oil for Food scandal.. This was less than an adequate response and I replied with a list of problems. As the thread was shut down he was unable to respond, and may do so here.But I would like to bring up another subject as well, and that is gullibility regarding the different conspiracy theories surrounding the Iraq War. The FoxNEWS article trotted out an old conspiracy theory and worked in some new "evidence". Tal said he agreed with it. That is despite the mindnumbing inconsistencies of the theory.The theory goes like this: The Oil for Food Program (OFP) was a massive fraud bilking billions of dollars from donor nations and lining the pockets of key members of the UN and certain European nations. The Iraq War was not caused by Bush and company choosing to start a war with Iraq, but rather that those people profiting from the Iraq OFP did not want peace at all and were willing to cause a war by delaying the threat of all out war by undermining our ability to get Hussein to comply with UN resolutions. This is to say that those nations which did not side with the US on Iraq were the ones who actually started the war, because we wouldn't have had to invade if they had simply sided with us Hussein would have complied and there would have been no reason to invade.Here are some problems with that little theory:1) This assumes we were invading for reasons of noncomplicity with resolutions, and current statements by the administration are that that was not our actual goal.2) Even if it had been our goal, they were complying at the time we decided to end UN oversight and invade... which should raise the question if compliance was the goal.3) In the end it was discovered that Iraq had been (to a great extent) in compliance, so if those other nations had given into US demands there is nothing much more that Hussein could have done than he did already... so war under the above pretext was still a go. (I am really trying to figure out how people would still believe that Hussein was in drastic noncompliance such that if other nations had supported Bush Hussein would have complied and the war averted).4) And this is the clincher... If the European nations and UN personnel were greedy and looking to extend their money maker in the OFP, then their goal would be to prevent war as long as possible, not ensure that it would happen. Even if the OFP were set to end, it could have been extended and that would not happen after a war. Thus, if the best way to prevent a war would have been siding with the US, then their best bet would have been siding with the US.... duh.Now here is my next problem. Conservatives don't do much thinking and lap up the patently absurd scenario above and even offer it up as signs that the UN or Europe is corrupt. Yet they wholly deny the other conspiracy theory, which actually has a bit more weight...Theory: Neocons believed that invading Iraq would secure our oil supplies as well as defend Israel, both of which would aid their personal interests in an ideological and monetary way. Thus the invasion was a go whether anyone agreed or not, and whether Hussein showed "complicity" or not. Thus the UN and US allies were steamrolled for this agenda.I am wondering why if the former conspiracy theory was acceptable, this Blood for Oil Theory (BOT) is unacceptable. It has considerable weight...1) We invaded despite ongoing Iraqi compliance and without UN support (cutting off UN oversight without satisfactory explanation).2) Once it was discovered that Hussein had been in compliance and there were no WMDs or terrorist connections (both facts supporting the European and UN position), Bush and co said that wasn't the real purpose and extended the NEW REALITYtm that it was about toppling the first domino in the new game of domino theory... which is predicated on the neocon agenda listed above.3) In our invasion, postwar planning was essentially nonexistent and the only things actually secured for proper postwar management were oil assets.4) Lucrative contracts were awarded with no bids to friends of the administration and indeed one of which the VP currently make money from. Indeed that one has been able to keep all of its no bid contracts despite a number of legal problems stemming from overcharging the gov't (which is war profiteering at its worst).Now I am not going to say the BOT is completely true, but it certainly has greater evidentiary weight than the OFP theory for why the Iraq War happened.I am interested to know why one is believed over the other... especially by Tal.

Well, that would have been an interesting discussion. However, it doesn't appear that this thread has that intent. Have fun with your Tal-bashing. Someone pass the popcorn, please.

The OFP theory.I only posted what is being reported. More will develope on that situation. They did prevent the war for as long as possible. Saddam's Nuclear ProgramSaddam Possessed WMD, Extensive Terror TiesUBL and Saddam's connectionSalmon Pak Terror Training CampSalmon Pak Terror Training Camp 2Banned missile plan found in IraqWhy we know Iraq is lyingIraq failing to disarmIraq has TONS of chemical weaponsA decade of defianceThe proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
2 tons of low-enriched uranium moved from Iraq by USPolish Troops Find Sarin WarheadsMore SarinYet More SarinMustard and Sarin this timeSome more MustardContinual violation of the no-fly zones over 10 yearsAs to my personal belief in the lack of WMD, its out there. I read regular reports on the stuff. I can tell you who has Mustard/Sarin, how much, the market value, who inspected it, where the inspector was educated, and the license plate of both of their cars.However, all those details are classified secret or higher. You speak in ignorance. I can't even begin to list all the infrastructure we've secured and are rebuilding. Do some research for me real quick. I want you to tell me what KBR (Kellog, Brown, & Root, subsidiary(sp?) of Haliburton) actually does, and who would have competed with them for the contract.Oh, and what is your defition of lucrative? How much does it cost to do what they do in a combat zone, and again, what do they do here?

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Dude I have already made you my offer, only $1 million of your eartj dollars for the anti-mind control laser helmet and cheap at the price I tell you. Buy a dozen and I throw in a magic carpet. you can;t ask better than that.

This is not just Tal bashing but he is the primary focus due to having brought up the whole subject.I don't understand how you can say what the intent of this thread is Q? My real intent is to get answers to his assertion (the one you said would be interesting), as well as drawing everyone else into a discussion regarding the new theory (Oil for Food is what caused the Iraq war) versus the old theory (Blood for Oil is what drove the Iraq War). I certainly welcome your input on any and all points.If I put a bit too much pepper in the OP I apologize.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes, what was being reported by FoxNEWS. And I should add you weren't just reporting, you were using it as evidence to build your case against the UN. That means you believe it.I have already pointed out that the article in question includes commentary that refutes your claims against the UN. Indeed, on Late Edition this last Sunday the same comments came from Republicans regarding the UN. It is an isolated scandal and the UN is extremely useful. Interestingly enough it was also stated that what is "developing" with that situation is that it is not as bad as was being reported and that there is no "smoking guns". I repeat... REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING THIS. This statement makes no logical sense. If according to you the war could have been averted if they had sided with the US then the war could have been prevented for longer, right?As far as your links go, they are outdated and/or refuted. I don't understand how you can be citing them at all. We have our own inspectors' reports in the public eye as well as a government study. Why are you prefering these old tidbits instead of the massive up to date conclusions? Uh huh. Now I realize there is the possibility of remaining stock chemicals, especially in the form of lost armaments (which is exactly what the poles found), but the idea that we were in any imminent threat from them is gone. It is dismissed even by this administration (except perhaps Cheney).So I believe this statement (if you are suggesting massive amounts) about as much as I believe your statement that you have lists of civilian casualties which the pentagon has gone on record as saying are not being collected.How does a guy on protective service get all this great classified info? That does not seem to pass the common sense test.As it is though, the fact that you have posted outdated articles as worthy, when they are refuted by the most up to date congressional and expert reports, makes me wonder how credible all this other "super secret" info is. Note I said for proper postwar management. It has already been admitted by this administration that such things were not done. Do you not get the news where you are, or is it all Fox?The fact is that key buildings for civil records and military management were allowed to be looted and destroyed. I'm sorry are you kidding me? Are you seriously contending that no one would have been able to compete in a bidding situation? If that were true, then there was no reason to prevent a bid for the contract. The fact that people are complaining sort of suggests that at least someone thinks they could have competed.You know why you have competition for contracts? To see who is capable. Are you telling me they are not working for profit? That would be interesting. Are you also saying that you are unaware that at least two of the companies have already been cited for having overcharged for their services?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I probably should have written my sentence: "the intent of this thread doesn't appear to be the relevence of the UN, rather the legitimacy of various claims for the Iraq War." Better? Rehashing the proximate causes of the Iraq War will be an interesting spectator sport for me, not one I'm interesting in pursuing in my own right. Some other time we can have a discussion on the UN itself.

Oil for Food ScandalOil for Food Scandal 2Oil for Food Scandal 3Oil for Food Scandal 4Oil for Food Scandal 5Oil for Food Scandal 6Oil for Food Scandal 7Oil for Food Scandal 8Oil for Food Scandal 8Kofi Annan says there's a scandal, from Al jazeera I might add
Oil for Food Scandal worse than thought, says CongressOil for Food Scandal continues to growOil for Food Scandal 12Oil for Food Scandal 13Oil for Food Scandal 14Oil for Food Scndal 15I see someone isn't living in the real world. I was on the PSD team for the Deputy Chief of Staff, Strategy, Plans, and Assessment...a 2 star general here at MNF-I HQ. You have to have a secret clearance to work at that level. As part of our daily routine we would spend a few hours looking over threat assessments and what incidents happened yesterday from MI. Link? You are the one making the accusation. You tell me. I already know the answer.Now, so far I have given you no less than 33 factual links, despite your opinion of them being outdated and I'm waiting until you show evidence refuting each of them to be true, and you have given me nothing but your opinion.This message has been edited by Tal, 01-11-2005 01:46 AM

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Let's break this down 1 link at a time. True True True True True True True, exept we havn't found the mass piles of them (oh yeah..2 tons of nulcear material probably doesn't cout) True, its just a matter of where they went. True True True True And true

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

No combat plan ever survives first contact.Perfect is the enemy of good enough. What this is saying is that a good plan now is better than a perfect plan later. You can always find something to improve on in the plan, but when it is time to act, you act.If you've ever played a RTS game against a human oponent you'll see what I mean. You build your army, form your strategy, and it immediately goes out the window after you make contact with your adversary.Also, planning is a never ending process. We have 70+ officers assigned to do nothing but assess the current data, mold the assessments into the strategy, the use the strategy to make the plans (Strategy, Plans, and Assessment).This process evolves everyday depending on what the insurgents are doing. There you go with your supposed facts again.Evidence?

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

quote:

---

The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden

True
  —Tal

---

I was intrigued by this one as I hadn't seen anything in the media over here that suggested any real proof had been found, so I went back to your original link : This link turns out to be to an article in the Telegraph - a fairly right wing newspaper published over here. The article opens with this quote : Consider, however, the following excerpts from an interview between Inigo Gilmore (the Telegraph reporter who found the papers) and BBC News : So we know the building was under US control, but they were letting journalists in and out - and apparently without checking they weren't taking anything with them when they left. In the Telegraph article you linked to it is described in slightly more detail : So somebody in the Iraqi intelligence service decides that you can't mention bin Laden, even though the document repeatedly mentions al-Qa'eda. Furthermore they decide to do this at a time when they were in complete control of the situation (applying correcting fluid to a piece of paper isn't what you do if you're trying to hide incriminating evidence in a hurry, you shred it or burn it, such as was done with the papers that were shredded in the US Embassy in Iran after the Shah fell).You've mentioned you have a reasonably good security clearence, so maybe you have experience of obscuring sensitive sections of classified documents. If you wanted to do it would you use correcting fluid ? Doesn't that seem pretty strange to you ? Surely you'd use some kind of indelible marker or something like that - although of course that wouldn't really hide it - you'd then probably have to take a photocopy and destroy the original (so forensic techniques couldn't be used to get past the masking). So the CIA had gone though this building but somehow not found this document. An alternative explanation might be that the CIA put it there - who knows ?Now of course you can say "you're just making it up about the document being planted". There are, however, valid reasons for being suspicious.The Telegraph was in the news rather a lot in the last year over some other documents it found in a bombed out Goverment building in Baghdad. In April 2003 (pretty much the same time as the linked to article) they claimed to have found files in the burned out Iraqi Foreign Ministry proving that a left wing British MP called George Galloway was being payed by Saddam to advance his interests in the West. Galloway denied it and sued for libel - and in December 2004 won damages of 150,000.So we have the right wing Telegraph newspaper, one of the leading supporters of the war in this country, twice finding documents in Iraq in buildings that were under American control. Can we be sure in either or both cases that the documents are genuine ? Can we be sure they are forgeries ? I would say the answer is no - we basically just can't tell. That does mean however your

quote:

---

The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden

True
  —Tal

---

seems to be nowhere near as definitely proved as you seem to think.

---

Confused ? You will be...

Without doing any further research, I'll concede that point.Now what about the other 17?

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Fair enough. I haven't looked at the others - I will as/when I get a chance.

---

Confused ? You will be...

Uhhhhhh, I didn't say that there was no Oil for Food scandal. Neither did I say it did not "cast a shadow" on the UN. The point is what kind of a shadow did it cast.I will point out yet again that the very sources that you cite have repeatedly said that this scandal is not indicative that the UN is useless or inherently corrupt. What it does show is a case of major mismanagement and corruption within a program and so better management and oversight is needed. They go on to add, if you keep up with events, that the scandal is turning out not to be as big as it was initially feared. That does not make it good, it is still bad, just not as bad.The linking of it to Individuals allowing a war to begin in order to maintain their income is also not borne out. I get my news from government publications and watching experts discuss the issues. On top of that I pointed out how your own refs refuted your point. It appears I am living within this world.Did you check the dates on those articles and what more recent articles on those subjects say? I'm sorry, what reason would there be for you to get access to WMD info? That is not quite the same. Neither are compiled civilian casualty reports (which you still have not addressed). Are you kidding me? Are you seriously putting me on? Are you telling me you cannot find your way to published congressional reports? There were just two major reports put out with fanfare.And for that matter I am starting to get tired of you simply listing links as if that actually provides an argument (esp when you clearly are not understanding what is being said), and demanding links as a return argument. NO. This is not proper debate at all. I believe it is even excluded by forum rules.What I did is set out an argument. You did nothing but provide 33 links, that may or may not contain facts. Most of them are clearly old, and now I have to dig through them and then go find the specific refuting info and paste those as links?That is simply barraging a person with work in order to avoid debate.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Link and quote please. You are the one that must supply the burden of proof. Where? I only see Mangy attempting to refute anything. I'm losing my patience with you. BECAUSE THEY ARE TRYING TO USE THEM TO ATTACK US. Not a problem. I will go throught the links, again, and then pick out the relevant information and put it in quotes since you don't want to read. And, I might add, that took about an hour for me to compile, so if I had to do a little work, you'll have to also. But, since you refuse to, I'll spell them all out clearly and concisely, even the one Mangy brought up.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us