UN overpays Gulf War victims $5 billion

[Flatrater]

Originally Posted by T4 Primera

How can you assume that Hans Blix did not know what he was doing when only five Governments privvy to the full 12000 page report. By the time it was circulated at the UN, fully 2/3rds of the report had been omitted.

Only the five permanent member states of the security council had access to all 12000 pages of the report. Of those five, only one member state decided that war was a good idea.

Its easy to say Hans has no clue. Hans said one thing and then 3 month later said the total opposite thing. In Jan 2003 hans reported Iraq had WMD and had unaccounted for WMD. Yet 3 short months later old Hans states Iraq has no WMD and most likely hasn't had them for years. Now which is it Hans did they or didn't they. Just reading Hans report to the UN that was published which I supplied a link for shows Hans believed Iraq had them and then after the US invaded Hans turns around and says Iraq didn't have any and that the US will not find any. Was Hans trying to make people think Iraq had WMD just so he could keep his cash cow job for the UN?

You want to talk about that 12,000 page report Hans fricking wrote the damn thing, Hans was in charge of the panel that wrote the report. Wouldn't he know what was in the report and what was missing? Hans Blix said Iraq had unaccounted for WMD. It was Hans who stirred the pot.

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by Rbraczyk

You can never overpay a victim.

Beg to differ. Simple example:

Car 1 rear ends Car 2. Car 2 has $200 damage to bumper, but sees doctor for months and racks up bills in excess of $5000, and sues the other driver for $100,000. Gets paid about $20K, in addition to medical bills. Tell me they weren't overpaid.



And it appears from the documentation that Mr. Blix did reverse his position, from WMD to none. What is up with that?

There's more going on here than meets the eye; some sort of diplomatic dance or conspiracy of which we are unaware. Too many things don't quite add up.

[TRD2000]

the fact that blix states the threat of weapons proliferation could be contained by UN inspections almost sounded like he knew they weren't there but thought they may develop them if they weren't hindered and monitored. perhaps if thats the case it was important to him to maintain a threat to be able to continue the inspections, despite the fact he was content that they didn't exist at the time he said they were to maintain that threat. well actually he never said they did exist, he just never said they didn't and he provided enough cause to continue inspections. Obviously he didn't see enough evidence to agree with throwing the whole country into turmoil, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, cause he was pretty quick to come out and say he didn't think they were there. conveniently though, when he stopped saying what they wanted to hear, certain people stopped listening. Just something to think about. I was one of many who never thought there was WMD, and definately didn't think they could be utilised against "the world"... the "world" being the U.S. obviously.

[fredjacksonsan]

Whether WMD's were found by Blix or not, he shouldn't have made a decision what to say based on whether it was enough evidence to "throw the world into turmoil" or not. He should have objectively reported the facts. Too much of our information is filtered; the average citizen (in all countries) doesn't get the true story.

"The World". Interesting statement. Here in the US, most people believe that the rest of the world is a backwater and not worth their notice or mention; even some well educated people I know feel that way, and it's sad, the ignorance they wallow in.

Obviously, Saddam had no way to deliver his munitions of mass destruction(if he had them) to anywhere more than maybe 200 miles away (excluding aircraft), much less all the way to the US. So any WMD were not a direct threat; it could be argued that a secondary threat to the US existed: nukes could cause fallout, war could break out and pull the entire region in, threatening the flow of oil (ahhh, precious oil.....), destabilization, etc etc.

[TRD2000]

I Agree, He Should Have Just Said What He Saw Right From The Start Rather Than Entering Into That Whole Political "this Is What I Need To Say" Thing. Perhaps If Had Done That Though He Would Have Been Able To Provide No Evidence Of Wmd, Inspections Would Have Stopped, And That May Have Given Saddam An Opportunity To Really Develop The Weapons, Constituting An Actual Threat (not Saying He Would Have Used Them, Just He Might Have Had Them), As He Said, Un Inspections "contain" The Threat. I Cans Ee Why He Would Want To Continue Inspections, Question Is Though, If He Had Said Well Before The War That They Didn't Exist, Would Bush Have Still Invaded? It Would Appear So From Georgies More Recent Statements, Does That Sound Like Someone Who Had Their Mind Made Up?

The Oil Thing Is Kind Of Strange Too, The Us Is Not Dependant On Foreign Oil, It Is One Of Few Fortunate Countries To Be In That Position. In Fact Some People In The Business Have Told Me That The U.s. Is Actually Buying Up Oil And Stockpiling It In U.s. Wells, If You Had The Money And You Could Buy Oil For Under Market Price Then Sell It For More Later I Guess It Would Make Sense.... But Aside From The Oil Companies Who Has The Money To Do That Right?

[fredjacksonsan]

I think Bush was planning going in, just needed a reason.

I don't have the stats, but the US gets a good % of the oil from outside the country. True that there are large reserves in Texas and Alaska. The northern Alaska area is a pristine environment (except for where the oil co's are) and there's some debate over whether they should increase production or not.

[TRD2000]

Agreed.

i know the U.S. is currently using a lot of foreign oil, but that doesn't make them reliant on it, they could do just fine on their own reserves.

[Tehvisseeus]

US uses mostly foreign oil supplies, however since the war the oil prices have surged. A month ago I was payin $2.85 a gallon. I doubt the oil was a major reason for the iraq war.

[T4 Primera]

Originally Posted by Tehvisseeus

US uses mostly foreign oil supplies, however since the war the oil prices have surged. A month ago I was payin $2.85 a gallon. I doubt the oil was a major reason for the iraq war.

On the surface it might seem counterproductive, but if the oil costs more per barrel, then what do you need more of to buy it?.......Oil trading currency

[fredjacksonsan]

Great article, T4 and it makes sense, even though I'm not close to being an economist. Very thought provoking.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

I think Bush was planning going in, just needed a reason.

I don't have the stats, but the US gets a good % of the oil from outside the country. True that there are large reserves in Texas and Alaska. The northern Alaska area is a pristine environment (except for where the oil co's are) and there's some debate over whether they should increase production or not.

If you dislike the war on Iraq then so be it. But, less than 2-percent of America's oil originates from Iraq.