[moki]

Truly, I'm shocked.

from: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13...1824684,00.html

Also interesting reading: France's well oiled wheels of diplomacy

.....

Envoys admit taking oil payoffs
By Charles Bremner
France has distanced itself from two former ambassadors facing corruption charges

TWO former French ambassadors have admitted earning hundreds of thousands of dollars from the sale of oil that Iraq had assigned to them under the United Nations Oil-for-Food programme.
The disclosure tarnished France’s moral stand against the invasion of Iraq, and its Foreign Ministry scrambled to distance itself from the alleged illicit activities of Serge Boidevaix, a former director of the ministry, and of Jean-Bernard Mérimée, a former French Ambassador to the UN. Both are facing corruption charges.

Jean-Baptiste Mattei, spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, said: “There is no link . . . with the decision of France not to participate in the Iraq war. This stemmed from our concept of international law.”

Word that the two men had acknowledged payoffs from Baghdad has embarrassed the ministry, which fears that the actions of two retired diplomats will be used to discredit President Chirac’s opposition towards the invasion of Iraq.

Prosecution proceedings have been opened against both men on charges of influence peddling and corruptly acting for a foreign power. Le Monde reported that M Mérimée, 68, who served as UN Ambassador in the early 1990s, told Philippe Courroye, the investigating judge, that he had made $150,000 (£85,800) from two million barrels of oil that had been assigned to him in 2001.

Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, had given him the oil vouchers as thanks for his lobbying efforts on behalf of Iraq, Le Monde said. He was serving at the time as a special adviser to Kofi Annan, the UN SecretaryGeneral. M Boidevaix, 77, told investigators that he had received 29 million barrels between 1998 and 2003 in reward for lobbying on Iraq’s behalf against the international oil embargo, Le Monde said. According to the investigators, M Boidevaix had made $250,000 from selling on the vouchers.

He told Judge Courroye that he had kept the Foreign Ministry informed of his activities and the payments made to him after 1997. This appeared to conflict with the ministry’s assertion that it had no knowledge of the activities of the two ambassadors. The ministry also appeared to contradict itself, saying that in 2001 it had warned both men to observe caution in view of their status as former representatives of France. Last year, when US investigators reported evidence of French beneficiaries of the Iraqi oil handout, the ministry reacted indignantly.

Judge Courroye is investigating 11 French-based officials, business figures, politicians and a journalist who are alleged to have benefited from Baghdad’s largesse during the seven-year programme, which ended in 2003. Six have been told that they face charges. M Boidevaix told the judge that he believed that Senator Charles Pasqua, a former Gaullist Interior Minister, and others had enjoyed favours from Baghdad “because they lobbied hard for it with the Iraqis”.

The French media deplored the apparent involvement of senior state officials in corrupt dealings with the regime of Saddam Hussein. Le Monde said the image of France was at stake. Le Figaro said that “French diplomacy has been stained by ‘Oil for Food’.”

[NYCFarmboy]

lol

I am shocked as well!

Who would have thought!!!!!

gasp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


LOL LOL

I wonder when Saddam's payouts to Schroeder's anti-democracy minister will be made public as well?

[Rolling Bones]

Originally Posted by moki

Truly, I'm shocked.

from: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13...1824684,00.html

Also interesting reading: France's well oiled wheels of diplomacy

.....

Envoys admit taking oil payoffs
By Charles Bremner
France has distanced itself from two former ambassadors facing corruption charges

TWO former French ambassadors have admitted earning hundreds of thousands of dollars from the sale of oil that Iraq had assigned to them under the United Nations Oil-for-Food programme.
The disclosure tarnished France’s moral stand against the invasion of Iraq, and its Foreign Ministry scrambled to distance itself from the alleged illicit activities of Serge Boidevaix, a former director of the ministry, and of Jean-Bernard Mérimée, a former French Ambassador to the UN. Both are facing corruption charges.

Jean-Baptiste Mattei, spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, said: “There is no link . . . with the decision of France not to participate in the Iraq war. This stemmed from our concept of international law.”

Word that the two men had acknowledged payoffs from Baghdad has embarrassed the ministry, which fears that the actions of two retired diplomats will be used to discredit President Chirac’s opposition towards the invasion of Iraq.

Prosecution proceedings have been opened against both men on charges of influence peddling and corruptly acting for a foreign power. Le Monde reported that M Mérimée, 68, who served as UN Ambassador in the early 1990s, told Philippe Courroye, the investigating judge, that he had made $150,000 (£85,800) from two million barrels of oil that had been assigned to him in 2001.

Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, had given him the oil vouchers as thanks for his lobbying efforts on behalf of Iraq, Le Monde said. He was serving at the time as a special adviser to Kofi Annan, the UN SecretaryGeneral. M Boidevaix, 77, told investigators that he had received 29 million barrels between 1998 and 2003 in reward for lobbying on Iraq’s behalf against the international oil embargo, Le Monde said. According to the investigators, M Boidevaix had made $250,000 from selling on the vouchers.

He told Judge Courroye that he had kept the Foreign Ministry informed of his activities and the payments made to him after 1997. This appeared to conflict with the ministry’s assertion that it had no knowledge of the activities of the two ambassadors. The ministry also appeared to contradict itself, saying that in 2001 it had warned both men to observe caution in view of their status as former representatives of France. Last year, when US investigators reported evidence of French beneficiaries of the Iraqi oil handout, the ministry reacted indignantly.

Judge Courroye is investigating 11 French-based officials, business figures, politicians and a journalist who are alleged to have benefited from Baghdad’s largesse during the seven-year programme, which ended in 2003. Six have been told that they face charges. M Boidevaix told the judge that he believed that Senator Charles Pasqua, a former Gaullist Interior Minister, and others had enjoyed favours from Baghdad “because they lobbied hard for it with the Iraqis”.

The French media deplored the apparent involvement of senior state officials in corrupt dealings with the regime of Saddam Hussein. Le Monde said the image of France was at stake. Le Figaro said that “French diplomacy has been stained by ‘Oil for Food’.”

Like no Americans are ever on the take.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

Like no Americans are ever on the take.

Nevar.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

lol

I am shocked as well!

Who would have thought!!!!!

gasp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


LOL LOL

I wonder when Saddam's payouts to Schroeder's anti-democracy minister will be made public as well?

They still were right about the WMDs.....

[Face Ache]

Look! Over there! Shiny!

[mojo2]

I consumed very little oil today. Maybe the war ends sooner because I helped reduce demand for oil.

[ghporter]

"I'm shocked! Shocked to learn that there is gambling going on here!"
Louis Renault in Casablanca

Let's deal with Rolling Bones' statement here: No American diplomat has ever been in a position like these Frenchmen, where they could so easily (and quietly) cash in on their foreign service duties. This was indeed a unique situation, and the two individuals under investigation certainly seem to have debased themselves and their country's credibility by lining their pockets. It makes you wonder how much influence they had on French foreign policy, and how hard they worked to prevent more stringent sanctions (that could have impacted Sadam more specifically than the existing ones did) being instituted. I seem to recall that France, Russia and Germany were all very much opposed to doing anything that might actually hurt Sadam and his cronies... I wonder whether the German government (changing as we speak) is going to do any investigating about the Oil For Food Program and how it impacted German diplomats and companies...

Contrast that to how an American diplomat would have had to operate. While it's hard to tell from the article whether the two Frenchmen were actually working directly for the French Foreign Ministry, even former U.S. diplomats get some serious scrutiny when they do things for the U.S. government, particularly things of this level of importance. They might have an opportunity to cash in, but they also have to file financial reports, and the IRS is pretty careful about double checking what high-income people declare on their tax returns...

And I think the French Foreign Ministry's official stance lacks any shred of credibility. Two guys that were very dirty in this may wind up taking the fall, but the entire ministry is most likely tied up in some part of it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

Like no Americans are ever on the take.

Zoinks. That's the best argument I think I've ever seen. This is not a "hate France" thread.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by ghporter

"I'm shocked! Shocked to learn that there is gambling going on here!"
Louis Renault in Casablanca

Let's deal with Rolling Bones' statement here: No American diplomat has ever been in a position like these Frenchmen, where they could so easily (and quietly) cash in on their foreign service duties. This was indeed a unique situation, and the two individuals under investigation certainly seem to have debased themselves and their country's credibility by lining their pockets. It makes you wonder how much influence they had on French foreign policy, and how hard they worked to prevent more stringent sanctions (that could have impacted Sadam more specifically than the existing ones did) being instituted. I seem to recall that France, Russia and Germany were all very much opposed to doing anything that might actually hurt Sadam and his cronies... I wonder whether the German government (changing as we speak) is going to do any investigating about the Oil For Food Program and how it impacted German diplomats and companies...

Contrast that to how an American diplomat would have had to operate. While it's hard to tell from the article whether the two Frenchmen were actually working directly for the French Foreign Ministry, even former U.S. diplomats get some serious scrutiny when they do things for the U.S. government, particularly things of this level of importance. They might have an opportunity to cash in, but they also have to file financial reports, and the IRS is pretty careful about double checking what high-income people declare on their tax returns...

And I think the French Foreign Ministry's official stance lacks any shred of credibility. Two guys that were very dirty in this may wind up taking the fall, but the entire ministry is most likely tied up in some part of it.

I may have an example here, here and here and a couple more here as well.

Yeah. I know. They are not all involved in this Food-for-oil thing. However, I am looking forward for the future, when with the change in regime, accusations will fly like chicken s*** through the fan...

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Zoinks. That's the best argument I think I've ever seen. This is not a "hate France" thread.

Of course not. It's an analysis of French reporters over French politicians, as moki clearly spelled out for everyone to read.

N'est-ce pas moki?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

I may have an example here, here and here and a couple more here as well.

Yeah. I know. They are not all involved in this Food-for-oil thing. However, I am looking forward for the future, when with the change in regime, accusations will fly like chicken s*** through the fan...

A notable distinction. Your links are US government officials disciplined or punished either for spying, or for incompetantly handling classified information as a result of US government vigilance. That is a good and healthy thing. In contrast, the uncovering of the oil for food scandal is not the result of internal vigilence. When the investigations began, it was widely dismissed by UN apologists as a made up set of charges by a right wing anti-UN Republican senator. Only the charges are being proven correct.

Arrests are now being made, which is a good and healthy thing, but it is very belated. Those doing the arresting had to be dragged kicking and screaming to that position and the seriousness of the charges still has not sunk in. This is not someone losing a laptop. This is someone who sat at the desk in the UN Security Council and voted international issues of grave importance and who advised a permanent member government on how to handle Iraq. Serious stuff of grave international importance and we still may not yet understand just how much protection Saddam bought himself from countries like France and Russia, or just how much international opinion in favor of lenient treatment of Saddam was paid for through bribes. Saddam was not buying intelligence. You don't go to the UN for that. What he was buying was diplomatic protection for his regime. And coincidentally, France and Russia were pushing for the US and UK to lift the sanctions against Iraq and normalize relations right through the late 1990s. Is there a connection? Are you even asking the question?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

A notable distinction. Your links are US government officials disciplined or punished either for spying, or for incompetantly handling classified information as a result of US government vigilance. That is a good and healthy thing. In contrast, the uncovering of the oil for food scandal is not the result of internal vigilence. When the investigations began, it was widely dismissed by UN apologists as a made up set of charges by a right wing anti-UN Republican senator. Only the charges are being proven correct.

Arrests are now being made, which is a good and healthy thing, but it is very belated. Those doing the arresting had to be dragged kicking and screaming to that position and the seriousness of the charges still has not sunk in. This is not someone losing a laptop. This is someone who sat at the desk in the UN Security Council and voted international issues of grave importance and who advised a permanent member government on how to handle Iraq. Serious stuff of grave international importance and we still may not yet understand just how much protection Saddam bought himself from countries like France and Russia, or just how much international opinion in favor of lenient treatment of Saddam was paid for through bribes. Saddam was not buying intelligence. You don't go to the UN for that. What he was buying was diplomatic protection for his regime. And coincidentally, France and Russia were pushing for the US and UK to lift the sanctions against Iraq and normalize relations right through the late 1990s. Is there a connection? Are you even asking the question?

How far are you willing to go in subcategorizing to win a point?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

How far are you willing to go in subcategorizing to win a point?

It's not a matter of winning the point, its a matter of not missing the point.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

It's not a matter of winning the point, its a matter of not missing the point.

Seems you missed mine. Or decided to ignore it.

Everyone, whatever their status, position or importance, has the power to change the balance.

Whatever the nation, the organization, the belief adhesion, for better or for worse.

Sometimes, standing in front of the tree makes one miss the big picture. But you know the picture and chose not to take it all for what it is but emphasize one detail as if we should dismiss the rest. Pff.

Your point is one of detail, especially when you start further discrediting the UN, and make right wing senators look good in comparison. That being apparently different than one a someone commits treason for whatever motives.

My point is that there is no such thing as a better guy in that story and the US certainly has its own skeletons screaming to get out of many closets, like France, like Russia, like Canada, like Switzerland etc.

I get the whole point of corruption. Do you?

As for countries putting pressure to lift the sanctions, I am curious what good these sanctions actually had. And if we start digging dirt there, we might as well dig dirt everywhere else.

So please stop lecturing me about getting the your sanctimonious point when you are so one sided regarding justice over the wrongs of the UN, France and Russia when you are so blinded by patriotism.

You really made me laugh at "This is not someone losing a laptop."

Are you taking me for a fool by giving your own rendition of spying by your own compatriots? Like it was not their fault?

If we are to discredit the UN because of a few bad apples, let's discredit countries for their criminals as well.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Seems you missed mine. Or decided to ignore it.

Because of course, all you are trying to do is change the subject.

[Face Ache]

From BARBARA CROSSETTE, New York Times UN bureau chief, 1994-2001: Obscured behind the large issues of weapons of mass destruction and Joseph Wilson's links with the CIA is another story. Over the last year or so, Judith Miller also wrote a series of damaging reports on the "oil for food" scandal at the United Nations -- in particular, personally damaging to Secretary General Kofi Annan because the reports were frequently based on half-truths or hearsay peddled on Capitol Hill by people determined to force Annan out of office. At the UN, this was interpreted as payback for the UN's refusal to back the US war in Iraq. As a former NYT UN bureau chief [now retired] I have been asked repeatedly by diplomats, former US government officials, journalists still reporting from the organization and others why Times editors did not step in to question some of this reporting -- a lot of it proved wrong by the recent report by Paul Volcker -- or why the paper seemed to be on a vendetta against the UN. The Times answered that question Sunday in its page one report on the Miller affair. Ms. Run Amok had at least one very highly placed friend at the paper, and many Timespeople were afraid to tangle with her because of that. Note also, that Ambassador John Bolton, a severe critic of the UN and a figure so controversial he could not face a confirmation hearing in the Senate, was one of the administration officials who took time to visit Miller in jail.

Why would John Bolton visit Miller?

[moki]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Zoinks. That's the best argument I think I've ever seen. This is not a "hate France" thread.

Sure, people from any country can be on the take. I believe there are Russian and American businessmen that are involved. But we are talking about [b]UN Envoys[/url] here -- official UN representatives of the French government. Slight difference. I wonder how deep this goes...

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Because of course, all you are trying to do is change the subject.

No.

The topic is about moki's shock. First sentence of his post.

My post is to show how generalized the trend is.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

No.

The topic is about moki's shock. First sentence of his post.

My post is to show how generalized the trend is.

Hey guess what? Youre wrong.

This thread is most definately not about moki's shock. Assuming he wasn't being sarcastic (I know I would be. Its really no surprise at all) it is still just a minor point regarding one 'NNer, in the midst of a major point involving a number of polticians. You are changing the topic to something that suits you--something you stand a chance in "winning" at. You cannot justify the French's actions, so you try to change the topic to something you can either justify or prove wrong... like why moki should or should not be shocked.

And you're not the only one doing this:
Look at RollingBones: whats this about Americans also being on the take? Yeah, true. Nobody's denying that. It also happens to be not what this thread is about. And villalobos is doing it to! WMDs? What does that have to do with anything the OP said?

Change the subject when it doesn't suit you... easy way to argue, aint it?

[moki]

I was definitely being sarcastic... and he's floating the old straw-man argument... nice job not buying it.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Seems you missed mine. Or decided to ignore it.

There is a vast qualititative difference between taking money for turning one's head and taking money for treason (which is a somewhat broad application of the National Security Act of 1947). Selling secrets is espionage, while selling influence-including the influence of not reporting something-is official malfeasance. Taking money like the two Frenchmen are accused of doing is worse than malfeasance, it's more like racketeering. It can frequently be argued that espionage is at least somewhat ideologically motivated, but taking money from someone that pays you not to report how he's breaking the law (in this case international sanctions) is just greed.

Simey is very much right here; there are big differences between what the French have finally, under duress, started "investigating," and what the U.S. routinely does with both diplomats and people with security clearances.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by loki74

Hey guess what? Youre wrong.

This thread is most definately not about moki's shock. Assuming he wasn't being sarcastic

I am glad you had to assume it, rather than knowing it for certain...

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by moki

I was definitely being sarcastic... and he's floating the old straw-man argument... nice job not buying it.

Bravo. Now is the time to say you were sarcastic!

old straw-man argument?

I suppose you think I disagree with you regarding the malfeasance of that UN employee/diplomat/envoy or whatever. How wrong you would be to do so.

But the fact that you are interested into the fact that there was one French employee involved, and looking as to how deep this can be in France government makes it quite interesting, especially when ebuddy says that it is not about the French...

I am not excusing illegal actions (although I wonder which court will handle that one) but I wanted to make sure the idea of treason had to be understood as not being a new one, that the fact that it happened at the UN should not surprised anyone except the naive, or those who are just looking at more novel ways to discredit the UN as an ensemble, from the actions of a few "bad apples", an expression we know has been used again recently in another context.

Because you see moki, all your posts reflect your political alleagence, and it has been made clear from the get go that you don't like the UN, like most Right wingers of these boards.

Also, let's make sure that if we are to stay on that topic, that we look at how efficient that embargo has been; and let's not blame the French for its failures shall we?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by ghporter

There is a vast qualititative difference between taking money for turning one's head and taking money for treason (which is a somewhat broad application of the National Security Act of 1947). Selling secrets is espionage, while selling influence-including the influence of not reporting something-is official malfeasance. Taking money like the two Frenchmen are accused of doing is worse than malfeasance, it's more like racketeering. It can frequently be argued that espionage is at least somewhat ideologically motivated, but taking money from someone that pays you not to report how he's breaking the law (in this case international sanctions) is just greed.

Simey is very much right here; there are big differences between what the French have finally, under duress, started "investigating," and what the U.S. routinely does with both diplomats and people with security clearances.

ghporter, I understand your point, and Simey's was also a valid one. However, if you don't mind, I will not make those distinctions, because treason for whatever motivation is very subjective, and as we saw in these boards, terrorism being somewhat ideologically motivated, one will justify the other, and I am not sure we want to go there. These are categorizations that I find difficult to accept. Yes, that is my issue, and I will assume it.

Lying, or taking from someone things we do not own for a profit is wrong. If we justify these actions on ideological principles, we are going to venture in areas that are not bound to be easy to debate.

On one hand, I was supporting the embargo over Iraq. Then, with time, I thought the population was used to put pressure on a tyrant who never deserved to be supported by any of the countries who sold him any goods he got, and there aren't many innocents in that area... So many died from that decision.

Targetting these 2 French and have them face justice is the right thing to do. But for all the years Saddam Hussein had support from industrialized countries at which time he abused people of his country, I really wonder if the crime of these French is so important... To me, their crime is of absolutely no importance.

So if you'll excuse me, I will keep my opinion as it has been since the beginning of this thread. The one who has not sinned in or about Iraq can start throw the first one...

It is all about a sense of perspective, and I believe I am right here. Yes, these guys should pay. But the list is long and it is very sad that we are only some of them in the bullseye.

[moki]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

I am not excusing illegal actions (although I wonder which court will handle that one) but I wanted to make sure the idea of treason had to be understood as not being a new one, that the fact that it happened at the UN should not surprised anyone except the naive, or those who are just looking at more novel ways to discredit the UN as an ensemble, from the actions of a few "bad apples", an expression we know has been used again recently in another context.

Bad apples like official French envoys to the UN? Bad apples like Kofi Anan's son? I'm sorry this is looking like it will go an awful lot deeper than just a few greedy people.

Because you see moki, all your posts reflect your political alleagence, and it has been made clear from the get go that you don't like the UN, like most Right wingers of these boards.

I've voted for both democratic and republican presidents in the past... to make of it what you will.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by moki

Bad apples like official French envoys to the UN? Bad apples like Kofi Anan's son? I'm sorry this is looking like it will go an awful lot deeper than just a few greedy people.

Bad apples like ENRON and Co? Bad Apples like the spies I mentionned? Bad Apples like those guys "rebuilding" Iraq?

This is the wrong debate. People are people wherever they are; that there would be corruption at the U.N. had to be expected like anywhere else; stop playing the offended virgin will you?

I've voted for both democratic and republican presidents in the past... to make of it what you will.

Partisanery has nothing to do with it, and whether you voted for one another, Democrats or Republicans, from the ooutside, it bears no difference in terms of foreign economic policy.

And whoever you vote for would have to be proven, so if you do not mind, I will not consider that argument, especially that what I know of you is from the last 3 years, and I fail to se the democrat there...

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

So if you'll excuse me, I will keep my opinion as it has been since the beginning of this thread. The one who has not sinned in or about Iraq can start throw the first one...

It is all about a sense of perspective, and I believe I am right here. Yes, these guys should pay. But the list is long and it is very sad that we are only some of them in the bullseye.

Your opinion is of course yours to keep. But having been cleared for classified information, I can state categorically that any U.S. national who gets access to classified material will know without any doubt that any improper use of that material WILL get them a very long stay in very unpleasant acomodations.

The line between "getting the job done" and "making some profit off it," on the other hand, is not always well defined. It is incumbent on a high-level official to KNOW that difference on his own-that's why he gets chosen for such jobs. And any businessman/diplomat who gets to that stratum and says he does not know that such actions are unethical is taking the whole world for a bunch of fools.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Your opinion is of course yours to keep. But having been cleared for classified information, I can state categorically that any U.S. national who gets access to classified material will know without any doubt that any improper use of that material WILL get them a very long stay in very unpleasant acomodations.

The line between "getting the job done" and "making some profit off it," on the other hand, is not always well defined. It is incumbent on a high-level official to KNOW that difference on his own-that's why he gets chosen for such jobs. And any businessman/diplomat who gets to that stratum and says he does not know that such actions are unethical is taking the whole world for a bunch of fools.

Thank you. I am very appreciative of your post.

However, although it can prevent a certain number of possible corruption cases, it does not prevent them all.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

I am glad you had to assume it, rather than knowing it for certain...

I am most definately not glad you assume all the things you do, rather than knowing for certain. I am also not glad that you have failed to rebut a single point I made.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Thank you. I am very appreciative of your post.

However, although it can prevent a certain number of possible corruption cases, it does not prevent them all.

That's not my point at all. Giving someone who shouldn't have it classified information is not corrupt, it's illegal, stupid, and (IMO) treasonous.

But anyone in a position to become corrupt, particularly on the level we're talking about, knows precisely what he's doing, and is doing it on purpose. One does not "accidentally" take a kickback or payoff, and one does not "accidentally" enrich one's company while turning a blind eye to violations of UN sanctions.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by ghporter

That's not my point at all. Giving someone who shouldn't have it classified information is not corrupt, it's illegal, stupid, and (IMO) treasonous.

But anyone in a position to become corrupt, particularly on the level we're talking about, knows precisely what he's doing, and is doing it on purpose. One does not "accidentally" take a kickback or payoff, and one does not "accidentally" enrich one's company while turning a blind eye to violations of UN sanctions.

So you are saying that people in a "higher" position should be excluded of any elements of what makes them humans? ie being corruptible?

Have spies "accidentally" enriched themselves?

On one case, there is treason against one's country. On the other, its treason towards several.

The only difference is in the number of countries involved it seems to me.

But having been cleared for classified information, I can state categorically that any U.S. national who gets access to classified material will know without any doubt that any improper use of that material WILL get them a very long stay in very unpleasant acomodations.

I understood by that comment of yours that it meant a form of prevention. From that I supposed you infer that at the UN there is no such thing.

May be I failed to explain myself, but my understanding is that what these French guys did, whoever they worked for are criminals. But their crime is in no way different than any other crime of corruption I showed in the U.S. For that matter, I know for certain we can find similar crimes in other countries. The fact that these guys were attached to the UN, or the French government makes it in no way different than crimes related to selling confidential information of a government for another, whatever their motive, period.

That moki is sarcastic by being in "shock" is a joke as his interest is to see the dirt coming out of France which will certainly be the case, and the French will be first to not be surprised! I won't!

But we should not be surprised it ever happened at all, because it is part of Human Nature to, at times, try to get profit and get away with it.

That is my point. That we subcategorize the crime in one and a thousand ways makes absolutely no difference in my mind. People are corruptible, powerful people are even more corruptible. Not that they are all crooks, but when they fall, they fall from high.

I apologize if I failed to make it clearer before (I must admit that I am cryptic often enough on purpose) but here it is and I hope that we can agree on our mutual disagreement.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by loki74

Hey guess what? Youre wrong.

This thread is most definately not about moki's shock. Assuming he wasn't being sarcastic (I know I would be. Its really no surprise at all) it is still just a minor point regarding one 'NNer, in the midst of a major point involving a number of polticians. You are changing the topic to something that suits you--something you stand a chance in "winning" at.

Yes, I somewhat did. However, his point left room for interpretation, and I certainly took advantage of it. If moki had a habit of spelling out clearly what he is hinting at, we (at least I) would not be left to wonder what he is referring to.

Youn can disagree with me on this and that is fine. I will hold my point on this however because I believe I am not wrong. moki posted and left one comment: "truly Im shocked". What is he shocked about exactly? That there are French criminals? That they were involved in the Oil-For-Food program?

You cannot justify the French's actions,

And where did I justify their actions? They committed a crime therefore they should pay. There is no question about that.

so you try to change the topic to something you can either justify or prove wrong... like why moki should or should not be shocked.

Not at all. Please read again.

And you're not the only one doing this:
Look at RollingBones: whats this about Americans also being on the take? Yeah, true. Nobody's denying that. It also happens to be not what this thread is about. And villalobos is doing it to! WMDs? What does that have to do with anything the OP said?

Change the subject when it doesn't suit you... easy way to argue, aint it?

I am not that certain I changed the subject. First, I never wrote these guys were innocents. I never gave them any excuses. But that moki accentuates the fact that they are French with a sarcasm is a problem. If he had stated clearly something like: "The French government will finally have to admit after months of denial that there is corruption involving the Oil-For Food program despite their criticism of the US", I am pretty sure the discussion would have had another turn, at least with me, for the simple reason that the argumentation is spelled out clearly.

But then, if for you it was a given and obvious position, it was more like a snear to me.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Perhaps it might clarify things to restate the underlying question. It's not whether Saddam managed to buy off some individuals that is the really disturbing possibility. It's whether by so doing he managed to buy off some influential governments.

Russia, France, and others started pushing to let Saddam off his post-first-Gulf-war hook right about the time it now emerges he was buying off high government officials in those governments. If nothing else, it's a coincidence which those governments ought to be explaining.

Edit: Of course, I think that Pendergast and others know perfectly well that is the real issue, which is why they want to change the subject.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Perhaps it might clarify things to restate the underlying question. It's not whether Saddam managed to buy off some individuals that is the really disturbing possibility. It's whether by so doing he managed to buy off some influential governments.

Russia, France, and others started pushing to let Saddam off his post-first-Gulf-war hook right about the time it now emerges he was buying off high government officials in those governments. If nothing else, it's a coincidence which those governments ought to be explaining.

Edit: Of course, I think that Pendergast and others know perfectly well that is the real issue, which is why they want to change the subject.

That is pure provocation.

Here is a non-exhaustive list of countries that I know were had oil vouchers from Saddam:

Morrocco
Egypt
Algeria (was approached)
Among others, from memory.

These were identified by an article of "Le Monde Diplomatique" 4 years ago with that perspective of corruption but outside the scope of the Oil-for-food program. As angaq0k, I did make a reference to the article last year, but I cannot find the original article anymore on their website. That it did happen through that program is not surprising, although proofs had to be laid out. It did point out how useless the measures to enforce the embargo were when through diplomatic channels, Saddam Hussein was able to bribe the passage of large quantities of Oil at a rebate. Vouchers were often worth millions.

My point is still valid, however; the fascination you guys have over that so called scandal which is petti thievery compared to the sales of weapons and financial support to Saddam Hussein (Billions coming from the US on the eve of the Gulf War) makes the crime of these French a very little one.

After all I posted here, I think most of this thread are taking every one else for fools. I will not bite.

The show of light and mirrors will not work. The French guys have to pay for their crimes, but they are petty thieves compared to others who acted withe the interest of their "National Security".

[SimeyTheLimey]

Not that this has any special relevancy to the subject at issue here (which is Saddam's bribery of security council countries between the first and second Gulf Wars), but in fact (i.e. not the usual myths) Iraq's largest arms suppliers prior to the first Gulf War were the Soviet Union, followed by China and France. The US was always way down the list, but it is amazing how many people like to reorder reality. As if all that Soviet hardware originated in the US.

But anything to avoid discussing the issue. Carry on.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Not that this has any special relevancy to the subject at issue here (which is Saddam's bribery of security council countries between the first and second Gulf Wars), but in fact (i.e. not the usual myths) Iraq's largest arms suppliers prior to the first Gulf War were the Soviet Union, followed by China and France. The US was always way down the list, but it is amazing how many people like to reorder reality. As if all that Soviet hardware originated in the US.

But anything to avoid discussing the issue. Carry on.

Don't choke on the pop-corn.



Of course France and the USSR were amongst the biggest providers of weapons. But the US was still quite active, even in a "shy" way...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Don't choke on the pop-corn.



Of course France and the USSR were amongst the biggest providers of weapons. But the US was still quite active, even in a "shy" way...

Irrelevant. I said that the USSR, France, and Russia were the largest arms suppliers. In fact, they were by far the largest, because, of course, most of their military aid was in conventional arms, which are always the largest expenditure and the largest contributor to any armed force.

Of course, we know about the other western aid that Iraq received after the Iran-Iraq war broke out. Not, of course, just the US, but also West Germany, Italy, Great Britain, as well as more traditional allies like Russia and France. Nobody is denying it. But that doesn't refute the point I made. You live in a fantasy where the US was the largest supplier and the only one that you think counts, but that's not reality. In fact, it is not even close. Link to real numbers, not your silly photographs.

But that fact still has nothing to do with the thread. The real issue here is who was receiving bribes to let Saddam off the hook after his regime was placed under sanctions. The real question is whether those bribed officials of certain countries managed to influence their governments' policies in ways favorable to Saddam. It is a fact that in the 1990s, three governments in particular pushed to lift sanctions against Iraq. Those governments were Russia, France, and to a lesser extent, China. Was it conviction, economic self-interest, because they were bought by a dictator's money, or a combination of all of the above? I don't know, but I do know it wasn't because of the kind of balancing act between Iran and Iraq which lead to the West giving Iraq some help during the mid 1980s when it was at war with Iran. By the mid-1990s, Saddam was nobody's bulwark. He was a total pariah -- except, it seems, in Moscow, Paris, and Beijing.

Just to reiterate in case you try to shift the discussion to irrelevancies again. It was not the US who was pushing to resume those arms sales after the First Gulf War. The people pushing to lift the sanctions were Iraq's traditional arms suppliers -- mainly Russia and France. Not the US. And coincidentally, the payoffs seems to have been predominantly toward Russian and French government officials. What a embarrassing coincidence. That is, if it is a coincidence.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Irrelevant. I said that the USSR, France, and Russia were the largest arms suppliers. In fact, they were by far the largest, because, of course, most of their military aid was in conventional arms, which are always the largest expenditure and the largest contributor to any armed force.

Of course, we know about the other western aid that Iraq received after the Iran-Iraq war broke out. Not, of course, just the US, but also West Germany, Italy, Great Britain, as well as more traditional allies like Russia and France. Nobody is denying it. But that doesn't refute the point I made. You live in a fantasy where the US was the largest supplier and the only one that you think counts, but that's not reality.

Where did I say the US was the largest supplier?

In fact, it is not even close. Link to real numbers, not your silly photographs.

Again, I never said or wrote the US were the largest supplier, so without reading your link, I maintain that I conceded that point already.

But that fact still has nothing to do with the thread. The real issue here is who was receiving bribes to let Saddam off the hook after his regime was placed under sanctions. The real question is whether those bribed officials of certain countries managed to influence their governments' policies in ways favorable to Saddam. It is a fact that in the 1990s, three governments in particular pushed to lift sanctions against Iraq. Those governments were Russia, France, and to a lesser extent, China. Was it conviction, economic self-interest, because they were bought by a dictator's money, or a combination of all of the above? I don't know, but I do know it wasn't because of the kind of balancing act between Iran and Iraq which lead to the West giving Iraq some help during the mid 1980s when it was at war with Iran. By the mid-1990s, Saddam was nobody's bulwark. He was a total pariah -- except, it seems, in Moscow, Paris, and Beijing.

I have nno problem agreeing with this. My problem is that all those countries you mentioned, including the US, have had dirty hands from the get-go, long before the '90s.

Just to reiterate in case you try to shift the discussion to irrelevancies again. It was not the US who was pushing to resume those arms sales after the First Gulf War.

You are puting words in my mouth here, which is dishonest: quote me with those words in this thread if you dare.

The people pushing to lift the sanctions were Iraq's traditional arms suppliers -- mainly Russia and France. Not the US.

I never said the opposite; I did mention that in the great scheme of things, the US was involved in this. I never said when.

And coincidentally, the payoffs seems to have been predominantly toward Russian and French government officials. What a embarrassing coincidence. That is, if it is a coincidence.

There is no coincidence, and I never denied any of this. You on the other hand, seem to avoid the point that historically, the US has been involved, even to a lesser extent. Your perception of this situation, as well as moki's and many others in these threads is to disregard any participation of the US in the accumulating fortune of Saddam Hussein. The fact that France is targetted now under the conditions you want to consider and only those conditions says a lot about your own objectivity.

The topic never changed; the list of accused is just bigger and includes America, whether you like it or not, whether it was during the Oil-for-food program or not. If you prefer to look at that single circumstance, fine by me. Denial of the big picture will again, as it did with OBL, and a few "clever foreign ops", bite you in the derriere.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Yes, I somewhat did. However, his point left room for interpretation, and I certainly took advantage of it. If moki had a habit of spelling out clearly what he is hinting at, we (at least I) would not be left to wonder what he is referring to.

I suppose that makes you clever. But "taking advantage" of the way a given thing is stated and making the argument about the argument is not an effective way to argue.

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Youn can disagree with me on this and that is fine. I will hold my point on this however because I believe I am not wrong. moki posted and left one comment: "truly Im shocked". What is he shocked about exactly? That there are French criminals? That they were involved in the Oil-For-Food program?

Instead of the above stated "taking advantage," you should have stated rule 8. I think rule 8 is partly there so that what happened here does not happen--someone taking something and running in an entirely different direction than what the OP intended. I agree, he could have made his stance and argument more clear. But I don't think where you steered the discussion as a result was what one would call "reasonable extrapolation."

Originally Posted by Pendergast

And where did I justify their actions? They committed a crime therefore they should pay. There is no question about that.

Never said you did. This is where it seems to me you do not fully comprehend what I am saying. If you could (or thought you coould) justify their actions, you would. You didn't because you couldn't AND (as you've just stated) you wouldn't.

Originally Posted by Pendergast

I am not that certain I changed the subject. First, I never wrote these guys were innocents. I never gave them any excuses.

You did not so much change the subject as steer it in a direction that served you well. You actually had arguments, so kudos for that.

On the other hand, the other two people I mentioned clearly are afraid of this truth...and try to change the topic. America isn't spotless, the French may have been right about WMDs... so that negates the infraction the OP brought up? Moral relativism--it really doesnt work.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by loki74

Instead of the above stated "taking advantage," you should have stated rule 8.

Why didn't you?

On the other hand, the other two people I mentioned clearly are afraid of this truth...and try to change the topic. America isn't spotless, the French may have been right about WMDs... so that negates the infraction the OP brought up? Moral relativism--it really doesnt work.

Who defended the French in this thread? How can you say they are afraid of the truth?

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by moki

Truly, I'm shocked.

Wow moki real impressive. Hmmm now that the US has invaded Iraq, who will get all the juicy contracts now? Since there is no sign US troops will ever withdraw from Iraq your country has total control over their oil. All it took was killing 25,000 civilians. Small price to pay I guess to fill up your Hummers.

Oh, but it is all so ironic isn't it?

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Wow moki real impressive. Hmmm now that the US has invaded Iraq, who will get all the juicy contracts now? Since there is no sign US troops will ever withdraw from Iraq your country has total control over their oil. All it took was killing 25,000 civilians. Small price to pay I guess to fill up your Hummers.

Oh, but it is all so ironic isn't it?

Ah shuddup about the war already! We're busy being outraged by the French!

If they weren't all on the take, they'd be fighting in Iraq too. You know it.

[moki]

...and it looks like more to come with the oil for food scandals, as well as Chirac, whenever he is booted from office.

from: http://www.economist.com/research/ba....cfm?bg=638519

.....

French corruption
Feb 6th 2004
From Economist.com

In the past decade over 500 French politicians and businessmen have been investigated or convicted for corruption. Many of Les affaires, as the scandals are known, relate to illegal money-raising for political parties in the 1980s and 1990s. Jacques Chirac may have been among the worst culprits, though as France's president he is immune from prosecution. Alain Juppé, his former right-hand man and putative successor, was convicted in February 2004 of allowing party workers to be paid by the Paris treasury when he was treasurer, which has thrown Mr Chirac's party into disarray.

Other scandals concern Elf, a state-owned oil company used by François Mitterrand (president from 1981 to 1995) as a slush fund to lubricate foreign policy and fill friends' pockets. The fallout cost Dominique Strauss-Kahn, then finance minister, his job and sent Roland Dumas, a former foreign minister, his ex-mistress, and Alfred Sirven, a former Elf executive (who fled the country), to prison. (Though Mr Dumas was later cleared on appeal.) Add to this the scandalous collapse of Crédit Lyonnais, France's biggest state-owned bank, and some wonder if France is endemically corrupt. But allegations that officials in Toulouse, including the mayor, police and judges, were part of a murderous sex-ring has shocked even cynics.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by moki

...and it looks like more to come with the oil for food scandals, as well as Chirac, whenever he is booted from office.

from: http://www.economist.com/research/ba....cfm?bg=638519

.....

French corruption
Feb 6th 2004
From Economist.com

In the past decade over 500 French politicians and businessmen have been investigated or convicted for corruption. Many of Les affaires, as the scandals are known, relate to illegal money-raising for political parties in the 1980s and 1990s. Jacques Chirac may have been among the worst culprits, though as France's president he is immune from prosecution. Alain Juppé, his former right-hand man and putative successor, was convicted in February 2004 of allowing party workers to be paid by the Paris treasury when he was treasurer, which has thrown Mr Chirac's party into disarray.

Other scandals concern Elf, a state-owned oil company used by François Mitterrand (president from 1981 to 1995) as a slush fund to lubricate foreign policy and fill friends' pockets. The fallout cost Dominique Strauss-Kahn, then finance minister, his job and sent Roland Dumas, a former foreign minister, his ex-mistress, and Alfred Sirven, a former Elf executive (who fled the country), to prison. (Though Mr Dumas was later cleared on appeal.) Add to this the scandalous collapse of Crédit Lyonnais, France's biggest state-owned bank, and some wonder if France is endemically corrupt. But allegations that officials in Toulouse, including the mayor, police and judges, were part of a murderous sex-ring has shocked even cynics.

What does your link have to do with the oil-for-food program?

These accusations and allegations are irrelevant to your thread, unless all your are interested in is corruption of the French government. None of what you prodide in this post belongs to the topic that "shocked" you.

[Spliffdaddy]

France has always been viewed as corrupt - at least by Americans.

Why else would they be so against what America stands for? Because Americans are quite the opposite of corrupt.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

France has always been viewed as corrupt - at least by Americans.

Why else would they be so against what America stands for? Because Americans are quite the opposite of corrupt.

France was against the War in Iraq. As were almost all of the countries on the planet. I don't think war is what America stands for.

France is pro everything America actually stands for. In fact, most of the ideas that America is founded on came from France. I think a lot of Americans are just bitter because it turns out that the rest of the world was right about Iraq.

As for France being corrupt. Of course it's corrupt. Check out the transparency.org website and you'll see that the US is far from being corruption free itself. Cheney is up to his ears in corruption and cronyism is an American national passtime. It's how a lying buddy of the President negligently killed a thousand people in New Orleans.

There is criminal action being taken against these guys in France. What's happening to Michael Brown? Cheney? Halliburton?

[Spliffdaddy]

The mayor of New Orleans is a buddy of the President?

heh. Fat chance.

[black bear theory]

sorry for being OT because these companies are neither envoys nor french, but they are complicit as well. nearly 50% of the companies involved in the oil-for-food are believed to have been engaged in this activity. when the investigations are over, i think very few people will appear to have been involved for pure humanitarian reasons, though (oil) business is not generally geared towards helping others.

Bayoil (USA) Inc. and Bayoil Supply & Trading Ltd
Midway Trading of Reston

(http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont....21d4d889.html)
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in958215.shtml)