who Saddam bribed - leaked

Nie Trink Wasser

Graduate Poster
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
1,317
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1291280_1,00.html

A LEAKED report has exposed the extent of alleged corruption in the United Nations’ oil-for-food scheme in Iraq, identifying up to 200 individuals and companies that made profits running into hundreds of millions of pounds from it.

------


Benon Sevan, director of the UN oil-for-food programme, received 9.3m barrels of oil from the regime which he is estimated to have sold for a profit of £670,000. Sevan has always denied any improper conduct.

A former senior aide to Putin allegedly organised the sale of almost 4m barrels of oil at a profit of more than £330,000. At the time the oil was sold, Russia was blocking the UN from supporting America’s demands to attack Iraq. According to the report, the aide, who worked in the presidential office, received 3.9m barrels of oil between May and December 2002.

In the two months during the run-up to the war, the Iraqi regime illegally sold about £30m of oil to a Jordanian-based company with the money deposited in a Jordanian bank account established by the regime. This is suspected to have been an attempt to secure safe passage for Saddam’s family in the event of war.

A French oil company teamed up with the regime to bribe a UN-appointed inspector monitoring exports of Iraqi oil. The inspector, a Portuguese national working for Saybolt, a Dutch firm, was paid a total of £58,000 in cash to forge export documents.
The French firm is linked to a close associate of Jacques Chirac, the country’s president. A spokesman for Saybolt said it would be investigating the allegations.


Saddam imposed a surcharge of between 10 cents and 50 cents (5p to 27p) for every barrel of oil allocated by his regime between September 2000 and the end of 2002.
 
Nie Trink Wasser said:
why does this topic never get discussed here ?

Interesting.

Where is the link between the Bush administration and the oil-for-food program?
 
Nie Trink Wasser said:
why does this topic never get discussed here ?


merphie said:
Interesting.

Where is the link between the Bush administration and the oil-for-food program?

:D I think that exchange says it all.
 
a_unique_person said:
The last thread from Tinkie was a total scam. I think people just don't take any notice of him.

keep dreaming.

http://cnn.worldnews.printthis.clic....wmd.un.vouchers.ap/index.html&partnerID=2006

Report links U.N. to Iraq bribes



NEW YORK (AP) -- The top U.S. arms inspector has accused the former head of the $60 billion U.N. oil-for-food program of accepting bribes in the form of vouchers for Iraqi oil sales from Saddam Hussein's government.

The report by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, alleges the Iraqi government manipulated the U.N. program from 1996 to 2003 in order to acquire billions of dollars in illicit gains and to import illegal goods, including acquiring parts for missile systems.

The alleged schemes included an Iraqi system for allocating lucrative oil vouchers, which permitted recipients to purchase certain amounts of oil at a profit.

Benon Sevan, the former chief of the U.N. program, is among dozens of people who allegedly received the vouchers, according to the report, which said Saddam personally approved the list.
 
The plot thickens. I guess that shows why our "Allies" were so against going to war with Iraq.

I am glad that Sanctions against Iraq were so successful.
 
merphie said:
The plot thickens. I guess that shows why our "Allies" were so against going to war with Iraq.

I am glad that Sanctions against Iraq were so successful.
Here's an article entitled "Saddam paid off French leaders"

"According to Aziz, both parties understood that resale of the oil was to be reciprocated through efforts to lift U.N. sanctions or through opposition to American initiatives within the Security Council," the report said.
 
Before this thread goes any further, I want to make an observation. I notice that proponents of the Iraq war tend to want a lot of attention on the oil-for-food scandal and that anti-war people seem to gloss over it.

Pro-war people seem to care more about the appearance of quid-pro-quo than about Saddam's exploitation of the Iraqi humanitarian situation.

And the normally humanitarian-issue-aware anti-war people don't seem to care at all.

I think the oil-for-food program is a good litmus indicator what drives people and the filters they choose to wear.
 
corplinx said:
Before this thread goes any further, I want to make an observation. I notice that proponents of the Iraq war tend to want a lot of attention on the oil-for-food scandal and that anti-war people seem to gloss over it.

Pro-war people seem to care more about the appearance of quid-pro-quo than about Saddam's exploitation of the Iraqi humanitarian situation.

And the normally humanitarian-issue-aware anti-war people don't seem to care at all.

I think the oil-for-food program is a good litmus indicator what drives people and the filters they choose to wear.

Of course. Every points out what is wrong with the other side. The truth is both candidates in both debates stretched the facts to support their view. This is the norm in politics.
 

Back
Top Bottom