Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : FREE AMERICA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (9545)	7/25/2006 2:16:47 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14758

The USA was more stable in 1855 then in 1862 don't you think ? Was it a better place for all the people in 1855?

To: epicure who wrote (9545)	7/25/2006 5:39:01 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14758

Under Saddam was more stable than now- for Iraq. I've read that opinion polls show Iraqis think it was worth it to get rid of Saddam. If an explosion occurs in Baghdad, it will be mentioned on our news now and we hear about it. But very little accurate news got out of Iraq while Saddam was in charge. So the perception of someone in the US vs someone in Iraq would naturally be different. If the country slides further in to civil war would you agree it was more stable under Saddam? I'd think the question was meaningless. Stability is not the ultimate goal of mankind. Saddam was a ruthless tyrant with the blood of millions on his hands. Very few people want Saddam put back in power to provide stability, I believe, which should indicate something. Deposing anyone like that is a good thing in and of itself regardless of how well the Iraqis handle their chance at freedom. Circumstances don't permit us to do such a thing very often. There's no need to regret it. Tell me just how bad does it have to get before you realize it was a mistake? Maybe no matter what happens you will see it as a success. I don't get that- but it kind of looks like that is where you are coming from. I think where you're coming from the important thing for you is that you were right and I was wrong. Our opinion on things is not the most important thing in the world, you know.

To: epicure who wrote (9545)	7/26/2006 12:17:02 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14758

Sweden Warned UN Of OFF Kickbacks, UN Shrugged By Captain Ed on UNSCAM Captain's Quarters A new report from Sweden shows that the UN had full awareness of the Oil-For-Food program's corruption, but chose to do nothing about it. The Swedish Foreign Ministry released a statement that claims the Swedish delegation brought the kickbacks to the attention of the UN sanctions committee in 2000: <<< An unidentified Swedish company informed the country's embassy in Amman, Jordan, in 2000 that Iraq was demanding 10 percent "fees" on all deals as a way to circumvent U.N. sanctions on Saddam's regime, according to a Swedish Foreign Ministry document published on the Web site of Swedish Radio. The document was sent from the embassy in Amman to the Foreign Ministry and Swedish delegation at the United Nations in December 2000, Swedish Radio said. The document stated clearly that the extra fees violated U.N. sanctions. But it was "clear that an open Swedish engagement in this issue would negatively affect other Swedish business opportunities" in Iraq, it said. Anders Kruse, head of the Foreign Ministry's legal division, said Sweden had forwarded the information to the U.N. committee in charge of sanctions and was told the extra fees were widely known. >>> Turtle Bay has long claimed ignorance of the problem until the 2003 invasion of Iraq produced reams of evidence of kickbacks and payoffs. Kofi Annan claimed that the UN didn't audit the OFF program thoroughly enough and never had any awareness of the vast monies being kicked back to Saddam Hussein. This announcement by Sweden makes clear that the UN had both knowledge and evidence of the corruption and a pretty good idea of its scope, but declined to enforce its own sanctions against the dictator. People who keep claiming that the UN had Saddam "in his box" should take note of this development. The UN had no interest in keeping Saddam in his box or anyone else's, either. The program had no auditing and little oversight, and it existed to enrich Saddam even while he defied the organization that put money in his pockets. The billions of dollars that he collected from the "humanitarian" program went for more illicit military materiel and more firepower with which to oppress and tyrannize the Iraqi people. Now the same organization that claimed to keep Saddam in check wants to push Israel aside and keep Hezbollah in check in Lebanon. Does anyone wonder why the Israelis show such great reluctance to accept that proposition? captainsquartersblog.com news.yahoo.com