Support NeoGAF

[KingV]

No, you have misunderstood me. I have not claimed that the US is offering illegal bribes what I am claiming is that the US is offering money (ala contracts) to do work. Where is that shakey? That being said the rest of your points are moot.

My main argurement is that

1. Some money is better than none.
2. If you are willing to work for bribes then why would you not work for legal money?


It appears to me that you are saying these individuals with connections to the oil industry (a totally leagal industry last time I checked) are unwilling to modify their corrupt principles to work with the US to get a steady check they would rather get 0 dollars than kiss up and get back into Iraq in some capacity (I'm not speaking governments I'm speaking corporations).

No, French and Russian oil companies are legally unable to gain contracts in Iraq from the US and provisional Iraqi government. It has nothing to do with altering business strategies, they are legally banned from bidding on the contracts by those two governments. There is no legal money for them to make in Iraq, generally because of their strong opposition to the war in the first place.

 

[KingV]

The US bribes UN member countries for votes all the time...

I realize this happens in the form of International aid, trade status, etc. The difference is 1) It's not illegal and 2) It's not doing it under the guise of a UN program, literally using it to embezzle billions of dollars from its intended purpose, undermining the spirit of the program.

Please, I'd love to hear an example of the US abusing UN programs in an illegal fashion to bribe countries into voting in their favor.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

No, French and Russian oil companies are legally unable to gain contracts in Iraq from the US and provisional Iraqi government. It has nothing to do with altering business strategies, they are legally banned from bidding on the contracts by those two governments. There is no legal money for them to make in Iraq, generally because of their strong opposition to the war in the first place.

So now they are abiding by the rules? Again, in who's interest is it in to make 0 dollars over making some dollars? You still have yet to convince me that these highly influential people would not be willing to change course in order to get access to the oil and the money.

 

[KingV]

I don't believe anyone can at this very moment on this forum come up with a new model for the UN that would actually work.

Its one thing to say 'its an organization that has terrible flaws' and its another thing to say 'it needs to be replaced' - replaced with what? The only reason the UN works at all is because the large member nations with Veto powers 'usually' listen to it and participate in the process. It is a large forum for all member nations to have a seat at the world table - AND to get things that they need by having their votes 'paid for' by larger nations. A forum for all nations is very important because it allows people to air their grievances, something that people for whatever reason feel isn't important.

"Will, action, and response" are all used by people who think the UN itself isn't comprised of diverse member nations and is somehow 'above' all nations. It isn't and it can't be, mainly because there is no equality amongst nations. The US isn't going to sit at the table in an organization where it has the same voice and power as Cuba - we might as well get that out of our minds now. The only way to build this 'ideal' organization is to have all players on equal footing... and that's not something we have today.

Sure the UN is slow... by nature ANY collaborative organization where you have lots of people who have different goals and manners of dealing with things is going to be slow. I used to believe that removing veto powers from the primary member nations would be a solution, but the more I've come to understand how the UN works - the less I believe the UN would actually function if there were some attempt to bring parity to the member nations.

I don't think it's possible to set up a completely fair UN-type organization. In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to say that it's even reasonable to assume that there's a good or better alternative to the UN out there, at least, not one everybody will agree upon. That doesn't make the UN a greatly laid out organization, or very effective. It's still quite ineffective, basically because it has no power, and ultimately no nation wants to be beholden to other nations' decisions, and in reality, why should they? The UN has no standing army of its own, or any real authority other than it can issue resolutions. It has some power economically, but other countries do not have to listen to the UN decisions if they don't want to.

 

[KingV]

So now they are abiding by the rules? Again, in who's interest is it in to make 0 dollars over making some dollars? You still have yet to convince me that these highly influential people would not be willing to change course in order to get access to the oil and the money.

I'm not saying they wouldn't, I'm saying

1) it's not very easy for them to do that, as the opportunity isn't there, due to the fact they hail from corporations in countries that are mainly ineligible for the contracts

2) Suddenly supporting the Iraq War wouldn't change that

How do they make these dollars from the US? They can't make it legally, there's no evidence that the US is handing out bribes to top executives to support the Iraq War in France and Russia. What is the supposed scam to make this money? Do you think that French and Russian corporations are abstaining from applying to Iraq rebuilding contracts because they don't believe in the cause? If so, that's incorrect, because they wouldn't by congressional resolution, be eligible for them anyway. I think you've lost sight of what you're arguing, because I'm not really sure what point you're trying to get at.

ARe you saying that they weren't actually bribed, or that they would have lobbied the same way anyway, so this somehow excuses them from taking bribes? They may have lobbied the same way anyway, but that doesn't excuse them from taking bribes, at least to me.

 

[Xenon]

So now they are abiding by the rules? Again, in who's interest is it in to make 0 dollars over making some dollars? You still have yet to convince me that these highly influential people would not be willing to change course in order to get access to the oil and the money.

You make it seem like there would be no cost to committing troops and financial support for rebuilding Iraq. It is not like the US is making a profit on this venture.

Also, they would be fearful of the world discovering their previous actions, as we have. I could see this being one of the main reasons they did not want to remove Saddam. Its basic human survival instinct, CYA.

 

[Phoenix]

I realize this happens in the form of International aid, trade status, etc. The difference is 1) It's not illegal and 2) It's not doing it under the guise of a UN program, literally using it to embezzle billions of dollars from its intended purpose, undermining the spirit of the program.

Please, I'd love to hear an example of the US abusing UN programs in an illegal fashion to bribe countries into voting in their favor.

I would not claim to know the history of every vote that transpires within the UN, but it would be foolhardy to believe that there isn't misappropriate conduct happening with all of the countries ... in fact I would say it would be naive.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

I've never claimed that the US is bribing (in the bags of cash sense) anyone to work in Iraq we have already covered this. Let's not go over that again.



Is this a correct statement to you:

These shady, unscruplous individuals, govenments, and corporations were all for supporting Saddam while he was in power becuase they were getting sacks of cash and oil for a discount. As you have clearly stated these groups are of weak moral fiber if they are willing to work with Saddam they would work with anybody.

To me this makes sense. These groups where willing to make back door deals in the event that when the sanctions were lifted they would profit greatly from the favors they did for Saddam (because of course he was the only one they dealt with). It also makes sense for them to oppose the US invasion of Iraq because it would mess up the status quo and cost them all the work they did in getting deals with Saddam.

- Now then, fast forward Saddam is out of power. This means
1. There is no great profit because the benefactor is in jail.

- Why would the continue to oppose the US at this point? Where is the incentive? I have inferred from your comments that these groups aren't doing it out of pride or morality but for purely financial motives alone. If that is the case then why do they not then change course say "You know what US, you were totally right we made a mistake and we are now ready to help you in your cause. How can we help?"

Using that as a smokescreen they would weasel their way back into the good graces of those who now control the oil and create some sort of legal endeavor with them. Will it be as profitable as before? No. But, it would be better than 0 and that's what they are getting now. That doesn't make sense to me why they would do that. Why would these groups fortit all of the cash? Why not make happy and get some cash.

I know that the US banned forgien companies from profiting from the war effort but, you would have to be a fool to think that even now the US would refuse some support. These are still diplomatic nations and are still up for negoitiation and deals.


My question in a nutshell is why are thest countries still being obstructionist when from what you claim their only motive was financial.

You make it seem like there would be no cost to committing troops and financial support for rebuilding Iraq. It is not like the US is making a profit on this venture.

Not now. But, when (if) the country is stable the US can make billions off of the deal. War is always fought for profit. The goal of every war is to control resources. You still think we are there for the good of the Iraqi people?