Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Oil-for-food Profits: U.S.

Oil-for-food Profits: U.S.
Thread Tools
angaq0k
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2004, 05:13 PM
 
Here.
Report Cites U.S. Profits in Sale of Iraqi Oil Under Hussein

By JUDITH MILLER and ERIC LIPTON

WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 - "New York Times" -- Major American oil companies and a Texas oil investor were among those who received lucrative vouchers that enabled them to buy Iraqi oil under the United Nations oil-for-food program, according to a report prepared by the chief arms inspector for the Central Intelligence Agency.

The 918-page report says that four American oil companies - Chevron, Mobil, Texaco and Bay Oil - and three individuals including Oscar S. Wyatt Jr. of Houston were given vouchers and got 111 million barrels of oil between them from 1996 to 2003. The vouchers allowed them to profit by selling the oil or the right to trade it._
(...)
The fact that these companies and individuals received oil from Iraq does not mean they did anything illegal, experts on the program said. Such allocations may have been proper if the individuals and companies received appropriate United Nations approval.

In interviews on Friday, spokesmen for the oil companies and for the El Paso Corporation, which assumed control of the assets of a company, Coastal Corporation, once run by Mr. Wyatt, said the transactions had been legal. But each confirmed that they had received subpoenas from a federal grand jury in New York, which is investigating "transactions in oil of Iraqi origin" as part of the oil-for-food program, according to a federal financial filing by El Paso._
It will be interesting to see the findings of this report and the full scope of that apparent scandal.
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Mithras
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: :ИOITAↃO⅃
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2004, 05:40 PM
 
No no, it's "the Russians" and "the French" that are corrupt. Since individuals represent their countries.

As for Chevron and Mobil, what's good for them is good for the U.S. And I'm sure they supported the invasion, so all is forgiven.
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2004, 06:30 PM
 
Originally posted by Mithras:
No no, it's "the Russians" and "the French" that are corrupt. Since individuals represent their countries.
The report specified French and Russian officials.
     
itai195
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cupertino, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2004, 07:50 PM
 
Originally posted by spacefreak:
The report specified French and Russian officials.
Well yes, because the names of Americans involved were deleted.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2004, 01:53 AM
 
naturally.
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2004, 08:36 AM
 
111 million barrels of oil is about 5 day's worth of US consumption. Over a 7 year period, that's nothing to get excited about.

Chris
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2004, 09:57 AM
 
Um, isn't this how the oil-for-food program was supposed to work anyway? Honest question; this doesn't at first glance seem like anything improper, but I may be missing something.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Mithras
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: :ИOITAↃO⅃
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2004, 10:14 AM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
Um, isn't this how the oil-for-food program was supposed to work anyway? Honest question; this doesn't at first glance seem like anything improper, but I may be missing something.
No, Saddam did corrupt it. He sold the oil at below-market costs to targeted companies and individuals (like Mobil and Texaco and a former French foreign minister). Thus, the vouchers for Iraqi oil were a guaranteed profit for the recipient.

On Saddam's end, his problem was that the Iraqi profits from the sales were tightly controlled -- only for humanitarian goods -- and hence he couldn't free up the money for his nefarious plots.

Saddam hoped that recipients would lobby for an end to sanctions, which would allow Saddam to get money that wasn't closely monitored. Then, perhaps, he could restart those weapons programs!


Bush has started using this as an argument for the war -- Saddam was corrupt, and trying to end sanctions, and if he had succeeded he might have started building WMDs again.

But of course, if
a) Sanctions worked at containing Saddam
and
b) Saddam was trying to corrupt a program so as to end the sanctions

which would be the correct response?
1. Invade Iraq.
2. Stamp out corruption in the program.


Tom DeLay is under investigation for corruption. Should we invade Texas?
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:15 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,