UN Scandal
32 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
- Colonel Ingus
-
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 11:05 pm
- Location: St Paul MN
UN Scandal
by Colonel Ingus » Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:41 pm
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/19813.htm
My my fancy that. and right after Kofi came out and said no wrongdoing was done, especially by his son.
My my fancy that. and right after Kofi came out and said no wrongdoing was done, especially by his son.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ... Benjamin Franklin
by Jeffro » Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:43 pm
Heh...on a lighter note...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=3&u=/ap/20040429/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_poll_2
Poll: Iraqis Want U.S. Out of Country
41 minutes ago Add World - AP to My Yahoo!
WASHINGTON - Despite concerns about their own safety, the majority of Iraqis say they want the U.S. and British troops now in Iraq (news - web sites) to leave within the next few months, according to a nationwide poll of people in Iraq.
"There's a sense of disillusionment," Gallup's director of international polling, Richard Burkholder, said Thursday. "They had higher expectations of us. If we can sweep their army aside in a matter of weeks, why can't we stabilize their country? We're a victim of their high expectations."
Seven in 10 said their lives or the lives of their family would be in danger if they were seen to be cooperating with the Coalition Provisional Authority currently governing Iraq. Almost two-thirds, 64 percent, said actions by the coalition have turned out worse than they expected at the time of the invasion.
While Iraqis are unhappy about the current situation in their country, almost two-thirds in the poll said they expect their country will be better off five years from now than it was before the U.S. and British invasion.
But half have doubts the United States is serious about establishing a democratic system in Iraq and even more, 57 percent, doubt the U.S. will allow Iraqis to design their own political future.
The CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll was taken between March 22 and April 9, before the latest rounds of fighting between coalition forces and insurgents. A relatively small number of the 3,444 face-to-face interviews were conducted more recently.
Almost six in 10, 57 percent, said they would like to see coalition troops leave "immediately, within the next few months," while 36 percent said they would like to see those troops stay longer.
Despite the reservations, Iraqis have mixed feelings about the effects of the U.S. led invasion.
_Six in 10 say ousting Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was worth the hardships they have faced since then.
_Half said they are better off since Saddam was ousted, while 25 percent said they are doing about the same.
Burkholder said the trend in Baghdad, where Gallup polled last August and September, reflects a drop in attitudes about U.S. troops.
Last August, almost six in 10 Iraqis said they had a positive view of how U.S. troops are behaving. Now, residents of Baghdad view U.S. soldiers negatively, by almost 8-1.
Only a quarter of Iraqis said attacks on U.S. troops are completely unjustified. Less than a third of Iraqis said the attacks are completely or somewhat justified from a moral standpoint. Another one in five said those attacks are sometimes justified.
Seven in 10 in the poll said they view the U.S. presence as an occupation and not a liberation.
Both Sunnis and Shiites shared the generally negative views of the U.S. mission in Iraq and U.S. troops.
But in the Sunni region in central Iraq, where troops have faced some of the strongest resistance , six in 10 said the attacks on U.S. troops can be justified morally.
The poll conducted by the Pan Arab Research Center of Dubai had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=3&u=/ap/20040429/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_poll_2
Poll: Iraqis Want U.S. Out of Country
41 minutes ago Add World - AP to My Yahoo!
WASHINGTON - Despite concerns about their own safety, the majority of Iraqis say they want the U.S. and British troops now in Iraq (news - web sites) to leave within the next few months, according to a nationwide poll of people in Iraq.
"There's a sense of disillusionment," Gallup's director of international polling, Richard Burkholder, said Thursday. "They had higher expectations of us. If we can sweep their army aside in a matter of weeks, why can't we stabilize their country? We're a victim of their high expectations."
Seven in 10 said their lives or the lives of their family would be in danger if they were seen to be cooperating with the Coalition Provisional Authority currently governing Iraq. Almost two-thirds, 64 percent, said actions by the coalition have turned out worse than they expected at the time of the invasion.
While Iraqis are unhappy about the current situation in their country, almost two-thirds in the poll said they expect their country will be better off five years from now than it was before the U.S. and British invasion.
But half have doubts the United States is serious about establishing a democratic system in Iraq and even more, 57 percent, doubt the U.S. will allow Iraqis to design their own political future.
The CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll was taken between March 22 and April 9, before the latest rounds of fighting between coalition forces and insurgents. A relatively small number of the 3,444 face-to-face interviews were conducted more recently.
Almost six in 10, 57 percent, said they would like to see coalition troops leave "immediately, within the next few months," while 36 percent said they would like to see those troops stay longer.
Despite the reservations, Iraqis have mixed feelings about the effects of the U.S. led invasion.
_Six in 10 say ousting Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was worth the hardships they have faced since then.
_Half said they are better off since Saddam was ousted, while 25 percent said they are doing about the same.
Burkholder said the trend in Baghdad, where Gallup polled last August and September, reflects a drop in attitudes about U.S. troops.
Last August, almost six in 10 Iraqis said they had a positive view of how U.S. troops are behaving. Now, residents of Baghdad view U.S. soldiers negatively, by almost 8-1.
Only a quarter of Iraqis said attacks on U.S. troops are completely unjustified. Less than a third of Iraqis said the attacks are completely or somewhat justified from a moral standpoint. Another one in five said those attacks are sometimes justified.
Seven in 10 in the poll said they view the U.S. presence as an occupation and not a liberation.
Both Sunnis and Shiites shared the generally negative views of the U.S. mission in Iraq and U.S. troops.
But in the Sunni region in central Iraq, where troops have faced some of the strongest resistance , six in 10 said the attacks on U.S. troops can be justified morally.
The poll conducted by the Pan Arab Research Center of Dubai had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.
http://www.purevolume.com/vagabond
2.4 Ghz, 4x256 RDRAM PC1066,
Radeon 9700 Non-Pro, 4.6
Catalysts, SB audigy 2, DSL
- Fat Bastard
by Fat Bastard » Thu Apr 29, 2004 8:17 pm
The iraq people are cowards, next there be trying to come over here so they can bitch about how bad of a job we did over there and that we never finished it. (they forgot that they voted us out.) When they didnt have the balls to fight for what they think is right so they come here where people do fight for what they think is right. F___ em let em die and don't let one of them come to this country.
- cashcow
by cashcow » Thu Apr 29, 2004 9:58 pm
Originally posted by Fat Bastard
The iraq people are cowards, next there be trying to come over here so they can bitch about how bad of a job we did over there and that we never finished it. (they forgot that they voted us out.) When they didnt have the balls to fight for what they think is right so they come here where people do fight for what they think is right. F___ em let em die and don't let one of them come to this country.
Please never exercise your right to vote.
Thanks.
- Colonel Ingus
-
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 11:05 pm
- Location: St Paul MN
by Colonel Ingus » Fri Apr 30, 2004 12:04 am
its ok Ralph I understand where they are coming from. The Canadians we hear from are a lot like children.
They never had to struggle to achieve anything so they think there is a silver platter out there.
What was it Thomas Jefferson said? Something about how the Tree of Liberty from time to time must be refreshed with the blood of patriots?
Its kind of like buying produce from the grocery store. They expect it to be readily available and when it isn't there anymore they have no idea how to make it grow or nurture it. Then they complain to the growers and don't care about what the growers had to do to actually make it reality.
They never had to struggle to achieve anything so they think there is a silver platter out there.
What was it Thomas Jefferson said? Something about how the Tree of Liberty from time to time must be refreshed with the blood of patriots?
Its kind of like buying produce from the grocery store. They expect it to be readily available and when it isn't there anymore they have no idea how to make it grow or nurture it. Then they complain to the growers and don't care about what the growers had to do to actually make it reality.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ... Benjamin Franklin
- shockwave203
-
- Posts: 1440
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 2:40 pm
- Location: SK Canada
by shockwave203 » Fri Apr 30, 2004 1:25 am
Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
its ok Ralph I understand where they are coming from. The Canadians we hear from are a lot like children.
They never had to struggle to achieve anything so they think there is a silver platter out there.
What was it Thomas Jefferson said? Something about how the Tree of Liberty from time to time must be refreshed with the blood of patriots?
Its kind of like buying produce from the grocery store. They expect it to be readily available and when it isn't there anymore they have no idea how to make it grow or nurture it. Then they complain to the growers and don't care about what the growers had to do to actually make it reality.
grow up, seriously. Just because some Canadians disagree with how the war in Iraq was handled, doesn't mean they are 'children'.
people disagree with actions of other people. stop bitching about how everyone doesn't have the same view as you. That goes for Ralph as well.
- Ralph Wiggum
by Ralph Wiggum » Fri Apr 30, 2004 2:20 am
I do not mean to offend Shockwave. I am well aware of the fact that all Canadians are not children, and I am grateful for Pamela Anderson. The Canadian comment was addressed to Chacal; the children comment was addressed to Jeffro. I think Chacal can take it, and besides he's that dreaded double-negative, the French-Canadian. I also think Jeffro can take it, and, whether he can or not, we are fortunate in the U.S. that he is probably not old enough to vote. My point is only that bringing up a poll of Iraqi citizens regarding anything is clearly non-responsive to a post about corruption at the U.N.
People can clearly disagree on all sorts of issues, even the very important ones. Of course no one has addressed the oil for food scandal. People on the left, and I unapologetically include most Canadians on these boards in that group, claim the U.S. only invaded Iraq for the oil. I would like to hear a response from them to documentary evidence that Kofi Annan and his U.N. cronies were only against it for the oil. Again, you can be on the wrong side of the issue, but you shouldn't be allowed to change the subject.
People can clearly disagree on all sorts of issues, even the very important ones. Of course no one has addressed the oil for food scandal. People on the left, and I unapologetically include most Canadians on these boards in that group, claim the U.S. only invaded Iraq for the oil. I would like to hear a response from them to documentary evidence that Kofi Annan and his U.N. cronies were only against it for the oil. Again, you can be on the wrong side of the issue, but you shouldn't be allowed to change the subject.
- shockwave203
-
- Posts: 1440
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 2:40 pm
- Location: SK Canada
by shockwave203 » Fri Apr 30, 2004 2:55 am
^ sorry, I thought you were making a generalized statement about everyone. didn't mean to snap.
you know, I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about the war in Iraq, and this UN oil-coverup mess. Last month if anyone were to ask me about my view of the US in Iraq, I would have said the US doesn't belong there. I would have said Bush lied to get support, he was after oil (especially after I read about the implementation of Executive Order 13303 which gives American oil companies complete control of Iraq's oil) but now I must admit that I'm not so sure i hold the same view.
Yes, one could say Bush lied. one could say he acted on bad intelligence, ignored good intelligence, or that he truly believed the facts he was spreading to people around the world. but you know what? that was then. Nothing we do today is going to change what happened yesterday.
When it's all said and done, Iraq is going to be better off. Saddam is out, and in the future Iraq will be a much more safe place. I always said that I would have supported the war in Iraq if the UN endorsed it...but after reading about the oil scandal, I have come to realize that the UN's endorsement means jack shit.
It's time to start focusing on the future instead of mistakes made in the past. After Iraq stabilizes, the people living there will be better off. How can I be against that?
I must say that I have lost a lot of faith in the UN. And for the first time, I actually believe that the US is doing more good in Iraq than bad.
you know, I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about the war in Iraq, and this UN oil-coverup mess. Last month if anyone were to ask me about my view of the US in Iraq, I would have said the US doesn't belong there. I would have said Bush lied to get support, he was after oil (especially after I read about the implementation of Executive Order 13303 which gives American oil companies complete control of Iraq's oil) but now I must admit that I'm not so sure i hold the same view.
Yes, one could say Bush lied. one could say he acted on bad intelligence, ignored good intelligence, or that he truly believed the facts he was spreading to people around the world. but you know what? that was then. Nothing we do today is going to change what happened yesterday.
When it's all said and done, Iraq is going to be better off. Saddam is out, and in the future Iraq will be a much more safe place. I always said that I would have supported the war in Iraq if the UN endorsed it...but after reading about the oil scandal, I have come to realize that the UN's endorsement means jack shit.
It's time to start focusing on the future instead of mistakes made in the past. After Iraq stabilizes, the people living there will be better off. How can I be against that?
I must say that I have lost a lot of faith in the UN. And for the first time, I actually believe that the US is doing more good in Iraq than bad.
- Ralph Wiggum
by Ralph Wiggum » Fri Apr 30, 2004 3:49 am
I would offer you honorary U.S. citizenship Shockwave, but I won't because I know you would refuse it. I am not altogether familiar with your argument regarding Executive Order 13303, but I think that you may have been mislead by a secondary source. I have attached a link to the order itself and to two enviro-radical articles that discuss it.
Having read the order, I think its purpose is to prevent any U.S. plaintiff from claiming an interest in oil from Iraq that comes into the U.S. The point would be to preempt people from raising claims in U.S. courts against any of the proceeds of Iraq's oil to satisfy claims based on the acts of Iraq's pre-war government. I'm drunk right now, but I can't see any reading that would immunize U.S. companies from liability for anything they ever did just because they dealth in Iraqi oil. This order doesn't mention U.S. oil companies, and doesn't have any effect outside of the U.S.
To me, the argument that the order is part of some sinister, secret government plot to steal Iraq's oil for U.S. companies seems belied by the fact that the text of the order is available on the White House website. Aside from that fact, the kind of imagination that is involved in interpreting the order the way some of these articles do is more worthy of BloodBudda's posts from last year.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/pdf/03-13412.pdf
http://www.earthrights.org/news/eo13303.shtml
http://zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=4397
Having read the order, I think its purpose is to prevent any U.S. plaintiff from claiming an interest in oil from Iraq that comes into the U.S. The point would be to preempt people from raising claims in U.S. courts against any of the proceeds of Iraq's oil to satisfy claims based on the acts of Iraq's pre-war government. I'm drunk right now, but I can't see any reading that would immunize U.S. companies from liability for anything they ever did just because they dealth in Iraqi oil. This order doesn't mention U.S. oil companies, and doesn't have any effect outside of the U.S.
To me, the argument that the order is part of some sinister, secret government plot to steal Iraq's oil for U.S. companies seems belied by the fact that the text of the order is available on the White House website. Aside from that fact, the kind of imagination that is involved in interpreting the order the way some of these articles do is more worthy of BloodBudda's posts from last year.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/pdf/03-13412.pdf
http://www.earthrights.org/news/eo13303.shtml
http://zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=4397
- shockwave203
-
- Posts: 1440
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 2:40 pm
- Location: SK Canada
by shockwave203 » Fri Apr 30, 2004 4:05 am
I'm thinking more longterm than short term. at present, revenue generated from oil will go directly towards rebuilding Iraq.
But in the future- anything the American oil companies do with regards to seizing control over Iraq's oil will be protected by the executive order. Ultimately, US corporations decide what is done, and what is not done with the oil, not only at present time but in the future as well.
But in the future- anything the American oil companies do with regards to seizing control over Iraq's oil will be protected by the executive order. Ultimately, US corporations decide what is done, and what is not done with the oil, not only at present time but in the future as well.
by Chacal » Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:16 am
We're all in this ship together. If Canada didn't lean to the left, North America would capsize. 
(It's only a joke, please don't invade my country).
As for the UN, politicians will be politicians. Humans will be humans.
You're very lucky if your politicians are immune to greed. I doubt if the opinion of almost the entire planet is influenced by these few individuals.
(It's only a joke, please don't invade my country).
As for the UN, politicians will be politicians. Humans will be humans.
You're very lucky if your politicians are immune to greed. I doubt if the opinion of almost the entire planet is influenced by these few individuals.
Chacal
[SIZE="1"][color="LightBlue"]Reporter: "Mr Gandhi, what do you think of western civilization?"
Gandhi: "I think it would be a great idea."[/color][/SIZE]
[SIZE="1"][color="LightBlue"]Reporter: "Mr Gandhi, what do you think of western civilization?"
Gandhi: "I think it would be a great idea."[/color][/SIZE]
- Folic_Acid
-
- Posts: 811
- Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 1:32 pm
- Location: Spying on you from Falls Church, VA
by Folic_Acid » Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:19 am
Originally posted by Chacal
We're all in this ship together. If Canada didn't lean to the left, North America would capsize.
Well said!
32 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests