New World Order?

Thank goodness that the UN had things “under control” in Iraq before the US unjustifiably attacked. After all, with programs administered with the skill and efficiency of the UN Oil for Food Programme, who needs a sovereign and democratic Iraq to administer its own oil?

Apparently, the scale of the corruption in the UN Oil for Food Programme was far larger than originally thought:

Saddam Hussein’s regime made more than $21.3 billion in illegal revenue by subverting the U.N. oil-for-food program–more than double previous estimates, according to congressional investigators.

“This is like an onion–we just keep uncovering more layers and more layers,” said Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minnesota, whose Senate Committee on Government Affairs received the new information at hearing Monday.

And it’s a good thing that European countries were straddling such a moral high-horse that they could objectively criticize the US for acting in its national interest and attacking Iraq when the timing was right and in light of the threat of imminent use of WMD (were they really not there, or might they be in Syria today?). Oh wait, it turns out that far from taking the philosophically high road that law is better than war, etc. (which of course assumes the premise that anything the US did was actually illegal under international law and existing security council resolutions, a proposition that it far from clear), those European countries were actually making oil not love (or war, for that matter).



  1. <>UN had things “under control” (said sarcastically)<>. Depends what you mean. Was the Oil-for-Food program leaking money – yes. Was it allowing Saddam to acquire WMD’s – no. Do you really, truly believe they’ve gone to Syria? Occam’s razor, John: there are no WMD’s=there were no WMD’s.  

    <><><><>Posted by<><> <><>< HREF="" TITLE="ronan at jhu dot edu">Ronan<>


  2. In what world is that Occam’s razor in action? Ronan–there WERE WMD’s. SH steadfastly refused–even with coalition forces massed on his borders–to provide the required documentation to prove that he had destroyed them. He has a long, established record of hiding and moving WMD. So why is it so implausible that they’re in Syria or anywhere else?

    Did you see in the summer when they uncovered a 90-ft MIG in the desert of western Iraq? If you can hide a MIG for that long, what else can be hid in a desert the size of California?

    Again, there WERE WMD. That’s established. There has never been convincing evidence offered that they were all destroyed. There are plenty of places to hide them, plenty of motives to do so, and plenty of time provided in the long UN stall. Occam’s razor suggests, rather, that some of them are still out there. 

    <><><><>Posted by<><> <><>Stuart


  3. By New World “Order” you mean: I’ll have a Big Mac, some oil, and a large serving of cash. 

    <><><><>Posted by<><> <><>< HREF="" TITLE="ronan at jhu dot edu">Ronan<>


  4. Beautiful, Ronan! 

    <><><><>Posted by<><> <><>< HREF="" TITLE="john dot fowles at gmx dot net">john fowles<>


Comments are closed.