Duh! Oil-for-food benefited Russians

from JoeUser Forums
As if we couldn't see this from a few thousand miles away, the obvious is being proven, thanks to a new report.

Why was Russia really not interested in providing support for votes in the U.N. related to Iraq? Read on. Headline is linked (as usual).




Oil-for-Food Benefited Russians, Report Says

Iraq Sought to Influence U.N. Through Moscow

By Justin Blum and Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, May 16, 2005; Page A01

Top Kremlin operatives and a flamboyant Russian politician reaped millions of dollars in profits under the U.N. oil-for-food program by selling oil that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein allowed them to buy at a deep discount, a Senate investigation has concluded.
The allegations -- which also include descriptions of kickbacks paid to Hussein -- are detailed in hundreds of pages of reports and documents made public last night by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in advance of a hearing tomorrow.
The documents outline a trail of oil and money that leads directly from Iraq to the Kremlin and the former chief of staff to Russian President Vladimir Putin and former president Boris Yeltsin. The report said Iraq sought to influence and reward the Russian government because it sits on the powerful U.N. Security Council that oversaw sanctions against the Hussein government. Russia repeatedly sided with Iraq on issues before the Security Council.
Yevgeniy V. Khorishko, a spokesman for the Russian Embassy in Washington, said it had received the Senate reports but could not yet discuss the findings. "We are looking into them," Khorishko said. "It's too early to give any comment."
A CIA report last year said that Hussein granted top political leaders from around the world the opportunity to buy Iraqi oil at a discount. But the Senate report presents more detailed evidence, alleging that Russian officials took up the offer and profited handsomely under the program.
In addition, the reports allege that Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, several Russian entities and a Houston-based oil trading company, Bayoil, "paid millions of dollars in illegal, under-the-table surcharges to the Hussein regime in connection with these oil transactions." U.S. officials say Hussein used illicit proceeds from oil sales to buy weapons, among other things.
"This is the way Saddam used oil-for-food: to line his own pocket and curry political favor," said Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), chairman of the investigations subcommittee that released the reports.
Iraq's U.N. ambassador, Feisal Amin Istrabadi, said Russia was one of dozens of countries that took advantage of Iraq's oil wealth. "There were certainly commercial and political interests involved, and Russia behaved like any other state in looking after itself," he said.


... more at linked article


So yet again, with half of the U.N. security council (or so it seemed, with both Russia and France in on the deals), why was it that we got no support in the U.N. for official sanctions of the war with Iraq? You know, that great "international support" that the liberals were screaming for... Why wasn't it there again, oh yeah, because SADDAM BOUGHT PEOPLE OFF.

The worst part is that it took this long for the report to come out and show us what most smarter U.S. citizens already knew.

Politics is such a dirty game. What is it they say about keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer? Just how friendly are we with the French and Russians again?
politics
2,569 views 6 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Interesting, this could lead to an interesting predicament between the US and Russia...
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
The oil for food program was of such huge proportions that's it's impossible to find out the 100% full entire story on the abuses and which officials were involved and so forth. Let's think rationally about it as usual. Terf might not know about the dirty and sometimes completely covert dealings that go on in the oil industry. Oil is interlocked with politics which it turn means its interlocked with corruption as well. His righteous indignation about this topic would only be valid if his own nation was squeaky clean and non-corrupt in the oil arena. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone said some forgotten guy from the Middle East a couple thousand years ago. But in the end Terf you have to realize that you're going politically senile in a couple ways. First, France, Germany, Canada, Russia, and a host of other nations all planned to commit their troops if their involvement was santioned by the UN. Secondly, It was the US that unfortunately to the UN that they were going in on their own irregardless of what the UN said. The UN bashing going on in the US was really pathetic, which only served to mess everything up more, bringing more bad blood to the table, which in turn guaranteed the US that they would be acting unilaterally. I really have to hand it to the US planners, the ones who are really pulling the strings. I'm in awe of them. It's hard to think about what they're planning next, in relation to their military escapades.
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Of course, like Reiki, they don't care how many Americans die. In fact, like Reiki, the Russians and French celebrate U.S. Deaths because, unlike Reiki, the U.S. cost them billions in under the table Oil-For-Iraqi-Lives blood money.

Reiki, of course you would defend the Useless UN in this. Why wouldn't you defend an organization whose leader who knew the UN "relief" workers were raping locals, but said nothing except, "what can we do to stop them?"

We know you applaud the rape, murder and exploitation of people all over the world, as long as, in your hateful, cold hearted life, you can cheer on them because they are the UN, and the UN is life!

This story is nothing more than further evident that the UN makes the mafia look like school children.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
" First, France, Germany, Canada, Russia, and a host of other nations all planned to commit their troops if their involvement was santioned by the UN. "


This is funny in its blindness. Of course they would claim to be ready to send troops if the UN approved. They KNEW the UN wasn't going to, because THEY were the ones approving. That statement is like me lauding myself for offering my car to someone, but only if I decide that they need a ride.

If they offered, knowing full well that they were going to stonewall and force the US to act alone, is it really a sign that they intended to help? I think not.

They were bought and paid for, and all the whiney anti-war types that lauded them should see them now for what they are. These were nations happy to support someone like Saddam Hussein to make money, regardless of his acts, and all the anti-war folks who supported them were dupes working to help their business dealings.
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
I really have to hand it to the US planners, the ones who are really pulling the strings. I'm in awe of them. It's hard to think about what they're planning next, in relation to their military escapades.


--Sarcasm?

Terf might not know about the dirty and sometimes completely covert dealings that go on in the oil industry. Oil is interlocked with politics which it turn means its interlocked with corruption as well.


--Not just oil. Many other corporations.

His righteous indignation about this topic would only be valid if his own nation was squeaky clean and non-corrupt in the oil arena


--No, he has every right, what about you Reiki House? Are you sinless? I very much doubt it.. No one is...

France, Germany, Canada, Russia, and a host of other nations all planned to commit their troops if their involvement was santioned by the UN. Secondly, It was the US that unfortunately to the UN that they were going in on their own irregardless of what the UN said. The UN bashing going on in the US was really pathetic, which only served to mess everything up more, bringing more bad blood to the table, which in turn guaranteed the US that they would be acting unilaterally. I really have to hand it to the US planners, the ones who are really pulling the strings. I'm in awe of them. It's hard to think about what they're planning next, in relation to their military escapades.


--Tramp, Runaway, Floppada, and Undertablea, are the UN's lap dogs....figurativley speaking....show me one conflict in which the United Nations PREVENTED.....that might restore my faith in it.....(yes, jokes intended, i do not have much respect for
these,and most european countries, governments....)

--I don't like the UN becayuse it gets little to nothing done, their are countries out there that need to be dealt with but the UN doesn't do anything.... (Joke: How do you find the UN? ......Find the paper trail leading to them... [their 'stern' resolutions] )

--The US was going to go (pretty much) on its own anyway......
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
So yet again, with half of the U.N. security council (or so it seemed, with both Russia and France in on the deals), why was it that we got no support in the U.N. for official sanctions of the war with Iraq? You know, that great "international support" that the liberals were screaming for... Why wasn't it there again, oh yeah, because SADDAM BOUGHT PEOPLE OFF.


This was the basis for the opposition to the Iraq war. The U.N. loving liberals will never get this.