egafd.com

Why have you posted the item in this way? Can't we have a link to the website where it appeared?

Mart

Excellent, some completely unsubstantiated rumours which come up with :-

"And Insight has learned that as investigators pursue the document trail, they believe they are getting closer to world leaders, including Chirac."

So - an unnamed security source is reported to be saying that, at some time in the future, they may come up with some evidence to prove that Chirac is a crook.

Would these be the same unnamed security sources who were reported in the US press after the fall of Baghdad telling everyone about the reams of documents proving that Saddam had substantial WMD programmes and had strong links to Al-Q?

"If this is true" is an enormous caveat. To base your splenetic hatred of the UN on clearly biased news reports which claim that "at some stage in the future, documents may be released which prove that everyone in the world is crooked, apart from us" is naive in the exreme.

But if you're glad that you went around the UN then good for you. The rest of us are wondering why your Mr Powell presented such a pile of bogus "intelligence" to the UN in an effort to get them to support your crusade and why your government is now so keen on garnering UN support for their plans for the future of Iraq.

It amazes me that after the US was attacked by a group of militant Islamic fundamentalists from Saudi Arabia, who took their orders from people in Afghanistan, it was decided to launch a supposed humanitarian mission to oust a dictator in Iran who was ideallogically opposed to Al-Q and who was in no position to provide them with WMD even if he was minded to do so.

There seems to be a choice - either the American government are supremely noble and would prefer to spend their resources on ousting a foreign dictator rather than combatting the terrorists who threaten their nation, or they have made a stupid mistake by launching a war that in no way damages Al-Q and is acting as the best of recruiting sergeants for Al-Q and its allies. Not that tough a choice really.

The usual response to any anti-Iraq war posting is to claim that the poster is anti-American. Never makes much sense when this is said of British posters as our stupid government blindly supported your stupid government in this crazy debacle. It is certainly not "anti-British" for a anyone to suggest that Blair and his cronies are a bunch of incompetent clowns, I wonder why the same view of the American government is considered to be anti-American.

Its all been said before Bimmercat

The sanctions were a farce as several arab neigbours were turning a blind eye to the hundreds of trucks full of oil passing over their borders

Farcical

Bribery is a way of business Worldwide

Everyone has their price and those that don't-disappear or leave with their reputations tarnished-mud sticks

The UN is a joke and always has been because its about politics/economics not whats in the best interest of countries

cheers
B....OZ

Thanks spook. But we'll never persuade Bimmercat that to be opposed to the US invasion is not the same thing as to be a dyed in the wool anti-American.
The same problem arises when anyone criticises current Israeli policy vis a vis Palestine. They are branded as being anti-Semitic.
If you do a search around that story, it begins to smell a bit. The main man is an advisor to Chalabi, who is dodgy, and as for KPMG, well we know how honest accountancy firms are, don't we.
I'm not disputing that there may not have been some dodgy deals over Iraq's oil but the story is a long way from destroying my faith in the UN's ability to deliver a better deal than Dubya.

Mart

To hell with this---show us the Bush press conference footage again.

Hmm, sounds about right Deuce. I'm not as up to speed on the UN as some of our esteemed forum colleagues seem to be; I just see the bigger picture. It seems to me the concept of the UN it's a noble ideal, but those ideals are not easily reconciled with human nature. So, what we have at the UN are probably a lot of corrupt, self important, officials from the third world, who's main mission is probably to see that they maintain themselves in the agreeable environment which they now find themselves in. All talks (waffle) and even votes will probably take place with these aims in mind. Also, people are idiots, in respect of their constant squabbling, which often seems irrational and bloody minded. One gets the impression they don't want peace. All it takes is for both parties to say "Hey, look. I know we've had our differences in the past. But all that nonsense was a while ago. So, why don't we just shake and agree to go forward together with the agreeable aims of building commerce, making loads of wedge and having a well cushty time?" Job sorted.

But that can't happen due to human nature. The ideal of the UN is noble, but it's also 'airy fairy', it ain't going to work as it was envisaged until human nature changes and we all grow up and become a little more responsible. As things stand it cannot be a strong, unified, rational force for world peace. In the short term it?s probably destined to be corrupt, ineffectual and a waste of money. So, in the absence of an effective worldwide organization, what?s needed is a strong, wealthy, democratic country, with the will and leadership to step into world trouble spots and say "Oi, idiots! Cut it out, now! Or we'll step in and sort it out for yer." Now, I wonder who might fit that bill? Hmm...

Officer Dibble - The alternative Secretary General

Since when did you care about UN mandates? And how many nasty bastards has the US been in bed with?

Mart