[Saddam H.]

Looks like Chirac is waist-deep in this. One of his goons gets caught.

Maybe Chirac isn't far behind.

[Saddam H.]

And there's this gem:

The president has avoided a serious judicial inquiry into how much he knew of the payment scheme by claiming immunity from prosecution, which he enjoys until his term runs out.

Really shows you Chirac's integrity and interest in being honest with the French people.

[lil'babykitten]

Another corrupt politician. Are you surprised?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Another corrupt politician. Are you surprised?

Tell me about it. I've come to believe that there is only one way to tell for certain that a politician has not been corrupted, and that is if he (or she) declines to run for a second term.

Which is a really sad state of affairs, if you think about it. But politics has some to stink so much of corruption that I doubt anyone who hasn't been seduced by it could stand to remain in it for more than one term.

[Saddam H.]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Another corrupt politician. Are you surprised?

Not one bit. But it does strike right at Chirac's door, and is relevant in his corruption in regards to Iraq and Hussein.

His refusal to speak on the subject via declared immunity is sooo Clinton and like a crook. What a dirtbag.

[FeLiZeCaT]

don't spill your milk.

the FDA did authorize the use of rGBH to make US cows great milk fountains.

At your risk and peril.

It's fun to see the other's troubles, but it blinds you into yours...

Chirac's government is certainly not the first, the last, or the only one in such situations.

It's all about business and making profit. Targeting Chirac is to target the rest of the WTO member's community.

[Saddam H.]

Originally posted by FeLiZeCaT:
don't spill your milk.

the FDA did authorize the use of rGBH to make US cows great milk fountains.

At your risk and peril.

It's fun to see the other's troubles, but it blinds you into yours...

Chirac's government is certainly not the first, the last, or the only one in such situations.

It's all about business and making profit. Targeting Chirac is to target the rest of the WTO member's community.

It looks like you're rationalising Chirac's and France's corruption. They sold out. Screwed their people and stole millions from them, and all you can do is say that everyone does it so it's no biggie if Chirac and his cronies get away with it.

[FeLiZeCaT]

767 000 barrels of petrol were sold to the US by the Iraq in 2001.

Source: Petroleum Supply Monthly, Energy Information Administration, US Department of Energy, June 2002.

Good business with the Axis of Evil don't you think?

My comment refers also to the fact that it is easy to see the corruption in others but always more difficult to see it for oneself. Or country.

Which is why I tend to attribute corruption and funny business to all country members of the WTO. (I am canadian).

No, the US is not to be blamed for all this mess.

But the population of the WTO countries are very comfortable; which is why they do not ask many questions. If they were to do just that, they would find themselves in a pretty uncomfortable position.

I am not saying that I do not believe that thing about France. I am saying all WTO members may have entertained funny business.

The problem lies in the Corporations looking for profits; since the boundaries between countries is thinner by the day, business exchanges can only increase and Laws more or less cheated or adapted. Since they have the money to support candidates, the odds for funny businesses are increasing.

Human beings being what they are, it is easy to corrupt them, and therefore have them do what they do. Whoever they may be.

Also, people have the power that the majority leaves them. Our governments are as strong
as its population is participating in it. Elections are nothing compared to the daily involvement required.

If we want to prevent corruption, we have to stop asking others to look into it; we should do it ourselves.

I saw the documentary "The Corporation" (http://www.thecorporation.tv) for the second time yesterday. There was a scene where members of a community (Arcana I believe but I do not remember for sure) where they voted against more fast food concessions than they already had (9 in total) for fear of too high involvement in the local politics by private interests. One of the community members said (as I remember it):

"If we were as many people interested in governments affairs as we have in Sunday afternoon football, we would have a really strong government"

[Saddam H.]

Originally posted by FeLiZeCaT:
767 000 barrels of petrol were sold to the US by the Iraq in 2001.

Source: Petroleum Supply Monthly, Energy Information Administration, US Department of Energy, June 2002.

Good business with the Axis of Evil don't you think?

Iraq sold oil under the Oil for Food program. By buying it, the US was trying to help Iraqis, not Saddam. And <1 million barrels is a pittance of what The Great Satan uses.

The rest of your post is pure dribble.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Saddam H.:
Not one bit. But it does strike right at Chirac's door, and is relevant in his corruption in regards to Iraq and Hussein.

His refusal to speak on the subject via declared immunity is sooo Clinton and like a crook. What a dirtbag.

How's that relevant to you, being in Qatar and all

Yeah, it's really unique what has happened in France, you know. Enron, Parmalat, Berlusconi, Kohl, Worldcom, Haliburton, Hutton report, ... Pick your favorite.

If you point with one finger on you, four will point on yourself.

Oh, I almost forgot: just get a fixed user name and keep on using that, like most of us do.

[FeLiZeCaT]

quote from Saddam H.:

Iraq sold oil under the Oil for Food program. By buying it, the US was trying to help Iraqis, not Saddam. And <1 million barrels is a pittance of what The Great Satan uses.
_____________________________________

"In devastation there is opportunity"

quoted from a trader, heard in the documentary "The Corporation"


It is amazing, indeed, to see one of the wealthiest countries feed the victims of totalitarism in exchange of such a commoditty. What generosity!

Who started that embargo against Iraq again?

http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07/uk/ethique.htm

Oil for food. It plainly says something like: " When we will go in, you will know who to thank".

In some areas, the price of protection is in the trade of the protector and a "minimum fee".

Double protection at double the price.

Now that the Iraqis are free, I wonder who will pay the cost of the liberation...

The U.S. tax payers?

And who will pay for the $87 billions and more for the so call reconstruction of Iraq?

That is freedom with a fee.

You feared terrorist attacks? I don't think you are done with them... But the likelihood to reach a U.S. home is lower (at the cost of YOUR freedom). It is likely to set on fire the "Great Satan" collaborators first.

And I agree with your last point; in the SUV country, wholesale food is nothing compared to the thirst of the vehicle that carries it.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by FeLiZeCaT:
It is amazing, indeed, to see one of the wealthiest countries feed the victims of totalitarism in exchange of such a commoditty. What generosity!

And the alternative is... what? Starving the whole lot of them? Granted, this happened anyway, to the tune of two million Iraqis, because Saddam embezzled most of the funds from the program. And yet, had the US not done this, they'd be blamed for those who would have starved; whether that would be more or less we'll never know now.

Talk about your damned if you do, damned if you don't situations, I guess. So what's the alternative: to sit back and do nothing, or do only things which lead nowhere and get nothing done? Sounds like a certain international body I know.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Millenium, I agree with you. Something had to be done.

Again, I wonder how come it had to happen this way in the firts place.


Truly enough, the U.N. could always do more.

But a certain member I know of the U.N. has that great veto power...

And this is only to refer to corruption in France. What I was hinting at is that there are many advantages in creating starvation in a country where the media are controlled by the dictature. It's easy to become a savior then...

But has you said, whom did they save exactly?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Millennium:
So what's the alternative: to sit back and do nothing, or do only things which lead nowhere and get nothing done? Sounds like a certain international body I know.

You mean the one that successfully dimantled Iraq's WMDs and WMD programs and almost single-handedly prevented him from reconstituting them?

The organization that was so wildley successful that Saddam actually order all his stockpiles destroyed so he could try and get the sanctions lifted?

"do nothing" indeed.

The collective memory gets shorter and shorter as time goes by.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Saddam H.:
And there's this gem: Really shows you Chirac's integrity and interest in being honest with the French people. [/B]

It may have been news to you, but it certainly wasn't to me. If you use the MacNN search feature, type my nic and chirac into it, you'll see a fair amount of my posts from quite a way back pointing to Chirac's less than stellar record. This case has been dragging on for years now, at least since the Bernard Tapie scandal started the ball rolling in the middle 90's. Chirac has had the luck of having been President since then, and as such has been immune from questioning, but not many in France doubt that Chirac was involved in or at least tolerated illegal payments while he was mayor of Paris.

There was quite a network of political payments from big business in Europe at the time, which all came crashing down when it was found that the Elf oil company had been paying politicians, including Helmut Kohl of Germany, for favours. After that there was quite a large witch hunt by the French legal system, which saw numerous politicians go down and quite a lot of them to jail. laws were tightened to help make sure that it wouldn't happen again. Juppe is the latest in that legal witch hunt.

The reason Chirac is leading the government has less to do with his popularity than with public fear of far right wing parties, such as the national front getting into power.

That said, Chirac is a clever bastard, and milked the anti-war position for all it was worth last year for his own prestige. While the vast majority of the French people, and indeed of Europe's population, were against the war, Chirac himself probably didn't personally give a damn. He just used the situation to further his own popularity. This is the same man that broke the nuclear test ban in 1996 in the pacific although most of the world was against it. This is also the same man that authorised the sabotage of the greenpeace boat in New zealand.

Well, whatever. There you have a small run down of Chirac.

For some reason, however, I somehow cannot see you caring much for the French people and what happens to them, to be honest.