The Victory Thread

[Stone]

Under free market conditions? Do you know how large the vig was that the UN was taking on oil-for-food sales? (Hint: it was large)

[Almaci]

You do know that this FIG you are talking about for the UN was less then 3% and payed for inspections, logistics and dismantling of Iraqs capabilities right?
And of course you also know that over 30% of the oil sales went to Quwait and the US for reparations of the first gulf war right?
3% against 30%, big difference wouldnt you agree?

[Stone]

It paid for running the offices related to the program - there was an extra percentage for inspections. The reparations amounts is somewhere in between 20 and 25%, and since the oil-for-food program started, huge amounts of money have just been sitting around, waiting to be disbursed. The UNCC took care of a big Kuwaiti claim - I don't know where you got the US part, as far as reparations go.

So, you've got the UN sucking in a few billion to operate itself and holding on to billions more waiting to disburse it.

Plus, under the program, how much of that oil-for-food money was actually helping real Iraqis, and not Baath party members? And, how can you call the oil-for-food program free market given what the Russians, Chinese, and French were doing in the area at the time?

Originally posted by Almaci
You do know that this FIG

No, Vig. (were you actually correcting my spelling?)

[Almaci]

Check the official US and UN numbers to see how much was money flowed to the US(as recent as two months ago former US POW´s were awarded millions of dollars each of Iraqi money, so somehow people who went into a war as part of their job are somehow deserving of money that could be used to help save the lives of innocents who didnt choose to be in that war, pretty sick if you ask me, wich you didnt, but I mention it anyway).
As for the rest dont make baseles acusations, come with credible proof of mishandling of contracts.

[Diff-chan]

The United States was in control of South Korea for three years, and even then that sometimes doesn't seem like enough. And many could say that the USA wasn't in Afghanistan for long enough.

The USA plans to be in Iraq for one year? That's really not that long of a time at all - in fact I would say its good. Its enough time to ensure that a solid, working government is in place for the future, and to make sure there is a good infrastructure. Really, I know that a lot of left-wingers (or whatever) will whine about this like its a sign of some occupation, but its really not. It's only one year. In fact, just the fact that they're giving a timetable is more than they've done in the past.

[Almaci]

One year?

[Stone]

Well, figure we ought to resurrect this one, at least briefly.

First thing - every dictator in the world will see the video of Saddam coming out of that hole, and will put himself in Saddam's place. Every non-Democratic ruler in the world with a less than cordial relationship with America sees what happened to Saddam happening to him.

That is a good thing.

Next- I hope the Iraqis decide not to execute him. I'd rather see Saddam in some sort of maximum security hole for the rest of his life. Maybe train a camera on him in his cell, and let people watch online. Kim Jong-Il can load up www.saddaminalittlecellforever.com and get an idea of what's coming for him if he keeps doing what he's doing to his people.

---

Saddam's capture was unbelievably humiliating, though - both to Saddam and, I think, to a number of Arabs who identify themselves with him. Even if they don't support his methods, they saw him as an Arab fighting against Americans (I think). For him to lose his freedom in such a well-broadcast, cowardly way, I imagine, won't sit well with a lot of people in the Middle East. Vaguely worrisome.

Might as well toss this in:

Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html