Talk:Oil for food/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

A proposal and some suggestions for moving forward

This seems to have become a rather heated debate, and doesn't seem to be getting closer to an article that all can agree is NPOV (even if it's not the article anyone would exactly like). I want to make a few suggestions for moving forward in this discussion.

First, I'm proposing a five-day period for working on a new version of the article that will be based on common agreement – it won't be comprehensive or final, but the goal is that it will serve as the core around which future editing and writing can take place. I will place that article on a temporary page. During that period, I will unprotect the article Oil for food, but ask that people continue to refrain from editing that article and instead work on the new article.

Assuming feedback on this proposal is generally positive over the next 24 hours, the five days will begin tomorrow at this time (9 a.m. EST/13:00 UTC on 30 April 2004) At the end of the five days, I will move the new article to Oil for food. Second, in the new article, I am asking that contributors only add content that they believe that all contributors will agree with. If there is disagreement, I am asking that contributors discuss that on the talk page for the temporary article -- not on this page -- Talk:Oil for food. I am also asking that contributors refrain from removing content that they disagree with, but instead allow me to make suggestions about how to handle disagreements -- remembering that my goal is to create something that we can all agree on as a basis for making progress on this article. I will note that this will involve some judgment calls on may part when it comes to deciding how much of the article is devoted to the "some people say X, while others say Y" content -- I ask that people go along with me for the time being. I will add any disputed facts, sources, or links to a section of the talk page for the temporary article.

Third, I am proposing the following guidelines for editing and for the talk pages and the WikiEN-l mailing list:

Editing
  1. Sign all posts to the talk page.
  2. Avoid characterizing the politics, motives, POV, or objectivity of material added to the article. Simple explain what you disagree with and why you disagree based on accuracy or that it disagrees with your point of view and then explain briefly what yours is.
  3. Avoid extrapolation of the above, e.g., "X supports Y, so if X says ___, it must be…"
  4. Work from the assumption for the five-day period that no one has a monopoly on the truth, even if one is certain that facts or evidence is 100 percent clear.
Talk pages/Mailing list
  1. Refrain from personal attacks.
  2. Refrain from characterizing the politics, motives, POV, or objectivity of other contributors.

Obviously this is all voluntary, but I believe this is a way that we can all move forward and create an article that is NPOV, factual, informative, and still reflects the differences in opinions and the interpretations of the facts.

Please respond below this line. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 12:57, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion of the proposal

Support:

  1. Uncle Ed 18:30, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC) Sounds like an excellent way to cool down a heated debate. I will confine my edits to the temp version, as requested, during the proposed time period. Thanks for taking on this difficult task, Bcorr. :-)
  2. I like BCorr's proposal. I particularly like the part: Refrain from personal attacks. In this context I would like to remind TDC that it is not helpful to use language like "One more dash of salt on your already painful wound." and "You are jack's enraged feeling of humiliation". Since I am not willing to spend five days on this article and since I see a very low probability that TDC and Rei find something like a consensus I think it is vital to get some more editors to contribute to this. Get-back-world-respect 18:56, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. TDC 18:50, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC) I too support help in mediating this debate. But first we have to agree on what to do: Split into two articles, or keep as one.

Oppose:

Other:

I apologize for not directly responding to Bcorr's proposal, but looking this over, a different thought occurred to me. I haven't been very active in this since Oil for Food Allegations was merged with Oil for Food. In fact I wasn't very active before, either, but I did participate actively in the VfD debate, where consensus was reached to merge the articles. Now it seems to me, especially looking at Rei's complaints, that the merger was a mistake. Since the Oil for Food Allegations are a live topic acknowledged as an issue by the UN itself, and since it is necessarily evolving, while the program itself has ocncluded, I think we should separate the two articles again. -- Cecropia 14:01, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That is why I believed a merge was a bad idea as well. I think this should be relocated to a new page. TDC 14:08, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

A question about your proposal, Bcorr: You stated that we should add only material that all people agree with. Does this mean that we should add material that all people believe is true, or add material that all people agree should be in the article? The problem that the current debate is raging over is that TDC wants to make the article have 4 times more "He claimed/she claimed" than things that are in dispute. We'll all agree (except in the number of cases where TDC has been flat-out wrong, such as his claims about the GAO report) that these various people with various motives have been making claims - that's why there's an investigation going on. What we won't agree about is whether the article should be 4:1 accusations to known truths. How do you propose to solve this? This is the crux of the debate. --Rei

<snipped text not directly discussion the proposal moved to Talk:Oil for food/Archive2

And, to answer Rei's specific question, I am asking that contributors only add content that they believe that all contributors will agree with. So yes, I mean material that all people agree should be in the article rather than that all people believe is true. If we can construct an article that consists of content that all can agree should be in the article, that will be the basis for further work. So yes, it means that this initial, temporary version won't contain everything -- and it may even be incomplete, but I think it is the common point of reference that is needed so that we can all move forward together.


Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 02:00, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Does the "all contributers agree with" information go on the temporary page or the current page? Does this policy apply in reverse - I.e., deleting information that we don't all agree with? --Rei
So where's the temporary page? I have some info I'd like to add to the Oil for Food article, but I think this info will be controversial. So I'd like to place it in the appropriate Talk page; and then talk about how (or whether) to add this info to the article. Here is the info:
"Documents found in Saddam's Oil Ministry in Baghdad show that Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization, a longtime ally of Saddam, was profiting from Oil for Food money — funds meant to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people under international sanctions." [1] (source: editorial page of Washington Times) --Uncle Ed 12:33, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
They are at Oil for food/revision and Talk:Oil for food/revision. Thanks ,BCorr|Брайен 15:12, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

I think one of the reasons this is so controversial (keep in mind that these are my own opinions) is that this corruption scandal goes to the heart of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Koffi Annans defense is boiling down to plea not to lay all the blame at the UN’s doorstep. He complains that the UN did not have the authority or the power to properly enforce the program, but no one was in the UN, including Annan, was complaining much about this before these allegations were made. Where was Annan complaining about smuggling and the evolving cult of secrecy within the program in 2000? While the US and GB were attempting to expand naval efforts at inspections to reduce smuggling and encountering stiff resistance from other security council members (France and Russia), where was Annan? Annan is right that he is not solely at fault, but he did absolutely nothing to stop it. And why should he? After all, oil for food money was a large component of the UN’s budget for the past 7 years.

Some of the contributors who so vehemently oppose the inclusion of this information in the article are objecting on grounds more related to their stance on the war in Iraq than their view of the merits of my additional information. Maybe they just don't want to admit that so many of the anti-war voices they used to support their stories were bought and paid for with money belonging to the long-suffering, if little-mentioned, Iraqi people.

Refrain from characterizing the politics, motives, POV, or objectivity of other contributors.Get-back-world-respect 17:28, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But this latest scandal proves that the UN, with all its structural flaws and moral failings that have led to the deaths of millions, can no longer claim the role of legitimate and neutral broker anymore. If, indeed, it ever could.

A "scandal" does not prove anything before proofs have been found. The investigation is ongoing. Get-back-world-respect 17:28, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Calls from people like Rei and GBWR that “nothing to see here people, move along, nothing to see here” are laughable.

Refrain from personal attacks.Get-back-world-respect 17:28, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That’s about the end of my ranting and debating the individual points on this story, as I am more interested in coming to a resolution on this.

But, as a parting shot to Rei, another entity on the Al Mada list has settled the record:

"Did people in the UN know that Saddam was asking for surcharges or the Iraqi regime was asking for surcharges? They had to," said Arthur Millholland, president of Oilexco Ltd., a junior oil company based in Calgary.
Mr. Millholland's name was also on the list but he has denied receiving any kickbacks or paying bribes. [2]

TDC 15:15, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Once again, I am contesting the *bribes* issue (and the "deliberate" helping of Saddam claims that you're trying to make). The al-Mada list is about bribes. Millholland said *nothing* to validate the al-Mada list. --Rei
Seriously, do you even read the links?
Millholland said *nothing* to validate the al-Mada list'.
Yesterday, Mr. Millholland said Iraqi officials did not ask for bribes at first and the program appeared to be having some success. However, by late 1999 officials in Iraq's State Oil Marketing Organization, or SOMO, began asking him to pay "surcharges" as a condition for contracts. The bribe requests persisted throughout 2000, 2001 and 2002 and became more sophisticated, he added. .
"they became forceful [and said], 'Maybe if you pay it we will let you leave the country.' I said, 'No.' "
The Iraqis "were really trying to find Western companies such as ours to break the sanctions."
He also said that nearly every company importing goods into Iraq had to pay up to 10 per cent in bribes to Iraqi officials. "Everybody knew about the payments. Anybody that was in the export or import business had to pay."
Move along folks, nothng to see here.
TDC 16:44, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
For the last time, that is *NOT* what the al-Mada list says! How has your mind managed to blur all of the allegations together into one? The al-Mada list doesn't talk about kickbacks to Saddam [3]. Got it? The al-Mada list talks about people taking bribes to support Saddam. What is so hard about this for you to understand? It is about *paying* bribes, not *receiving* bribes. Almost every company that deals in the third world pays bribes, Iraq or not. Al-Mada is not about that!. --Rei

Brian, the deletion is typical of a browser which can t edit over 32k. A page of 85 kb is not reasonable. You should make archives or subpages, because the deletion means someone can't edit this discussion page. SweetLittleFluffyThing 16:19, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Lets go ahead and make a list of false claims, insinuations, and misrepresentations that TDC has made so far. TDC, save your responses till the end.

  • The GAO report claimed that supply contracts were being given out to bribe security council members and influential politicians. - Completely false. The report says nothing of the sort.
  • Individuals who were given oil sales contracts were Hussein supporters, anti-sanctions activist, or influential persons within the UN Oil for Food program. Completely false. The report says nothing of the sort.
  • Individuals at the UN were at best grossly negligent and at worst criminally culpable in this False. The report accuses no one of being criminally culpable. The report accuses noone of negligence, although it could be read to construe that there was some generalized negligence on the part of the program.
  • The corruption began when Ben Sevan took over the program - The report doesn't even mention Sevan. It does not specificy a date when the "corrpution" (TDC's words, not the GAO's) began, so it couldn't even be inferred.
  • No one to date has come forward and claimed that the information obtained from the Iraqi Oil Ministry (the Al Mada "list") is fraudulent. - everyone on the list who has been interviewed has denied the charges. TDC has been deceptively trying to use interviews with people where they talk about kickbacks from companies to Saddam in order to get contracts, oil smuggling, etc, to imply that the al-Mada list is true. The al-Mada list doesn't cover this.
  • The implication that Cotenca got the contract because Kojo Annan works for them - Cotenca was brought in because they are one of the few companies on the planet that do international inspections that were able to respond to a 24 hour notice to get to Iraq to replace Lloyds after their unilateral withdrawl. TDC has presented nothing to try and back up the insinuation about Kojo. Kojo worked for the company in Nigeria and Ghana.
  • George Galloway has admitted knowing that his charity accepted money from Saddam. - False. Galloway admitted that it is possible that some of the people that donated to the charity had in turn received money from Saddam. TDC has continually confused this with when Galloway said that it was inevitable that people that he worked with in Iraq had ties to Saddam, since Saddam was the head of state in Iraq.
  • Kofi Annan has confirmed TDC's allegations - False. Kofi said that there is good change that some of the charges, such as the smuggling and kickbacks, are true. On the other hand, Kofi has also stated that some of the issues are "outrageous and exaggerated", has pointed out that the UN had no mandate to stop the oil smuggling (that was actually under the US's venue), that contracts were granted by the 661 committee of member states, etc. [4]
  • The GAO report found evidence of 10 billion dollars in kickbacks. False. The GAO found what they considered to be 4.4 billion dollars in kickbacks, and about 6 billion in oil smuggling. Their kickbacks number is determined simply by how much more Iraq paid than market price for the goods, and is not the result of looking through any Iraqi or corporate finance records.
  • Claudia Rosett testified that the OFF became secretive under Sevan. She testified of nothing of the sort. She claimed that the OFF was secretive, but put no time frame on it. I can't find anywhere outside of her testimony where she claimed that it became secretive under Sevan, either, although perhaps I'm just not looking hard enough. On this subject, you might be interested in a debate between her and Sevan, where even the claims that she does make are pretty thoroughly discredited. [5]

Why are we even having to debate over whether this false tripe should be in the article? --Rei

Honey cakes, I said the GAO investigation, not the report. TDC 17:33, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
Once again Honey cakes, Shakir al-Khafaji has confirmed it and he is on the list. TDC 17:33, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
Once again honey cakes: Claudia Rosett of the Hudson Institute, discovered that the UN treated details such as the identities of Oil-for-Food contractors, the price, quantity and quality of goods involved in the relief deals, and the identities of the oil buyers and precise quantities they received as confidential. The bank statements, the interest paid, the transactions, were all secret as well. This all took place after Sevan began heading the program'TDC 17:33, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
1) Document your claim about the GAO investigation. You don't release an "investigation". You release a report. The report sums up the findings of the investigation. The report said nothing of the sort. Go ahead - document your claim. Don't respond again on this subject without documentation.
2) Khafaji has not confirmed the al-Mada list. He claimed that he personally sold Iraqi oil illegally. You stated that noone has come forth and claimed that the information is false. I'll issue a correction: everyone on the list but Khafaji who has been interviewed has claimed that the information in the list is false. Your claim is still just as much of a lie.
3) Where are you citing that rosett claim from? I find not a single hit on the internet for "This all took place after Sevan began heading the program", and it is NOT in her testimony. As with #1, do not respond again on this subject without documentation. --Rei

Civility

A few days ago, I "refactored" a talk page involving, I think, TDC and GB World Respect. I'm thinking of doing that again here, removing extraneous personal remarks such as:

  • You just don't get this
  • Honey cakes

Let me know in advance if you have any strong objections to this... -- Uncle Ed 18:07, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I support that. Would you mind, while you're doing that, keeping track of the worst personal remarks (in a separate section, perhaps) that have been made made to assist users (myself included) in keeping them to a minimum in future conversations? --Rei

Revision done

I've copied the text from the revision page to the article. I hope that this has been a helpful process. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 23:12, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

My apologies, but I didn't see the revision article. Where was it? This version doesn't address anything that I discussed above. And still contains numerous falsehoods and mischaracterizations. I can start by running down the list: The OFF wasn't responsible for stopping oil smuggling - that was in the US's lap; Sevan told the commission not to hand over *confidential* company information; the request for audit information came before the UN pledged to release all information; Kofi Annan's clip was cut short, where he also went on to talk about how most of the claims being made are ridiculous; the Russian Orthodox Church was omitted from the al-Mada claims, because it makes them look ridiculous to claim that a major world church was involved in oil smuggling; the false claims about "This all took place after Sevan", which have been debunked extensively in this page, are repeated; tons of companies have ties to terrorism (for example, we could smear George Bush in his article by discussing his ties with BCCI, probably the largest money laundering, terrorist-aiding bank in history). There are no counterpoints to any of this smear. For example, Rosett debated Sevan on CNN, who pretty much trashed her claims. This is about as one-sided as physically possible, and it is 4:1 one sided accusations. It doesn't even mention Chalabi and the INC, who are the ones who supposedly have these mystery documents. I really cannot accept this. Rei 23:29, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
  • The OFF wasn't responsible for stopping oil smuggling

True, but they never reported it to the UNSC, the US and Britain did interdict seagoing vessels smuggled oil, but had no authority to stop smuggling over land.

  • the false claims about "This all took place after Sevan", which have been debunked extensively in this page

Once agian, nothing was debunked anywhere. The interview with Koffi Annan and Rosett does not even touch on this. If these claims are "debunked" then Rosett would be guilty of perjury for her testimony to congress.

  • Kofi Annan's clip was cut short, where he also went on to talk about how most of the claims being made are ridiculous

Then link to a longer clip.TDC 23:46, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • tons of companies have ties to terrorism (for example, we could smear George Bush in his article by discussing his ties with BCCI, probably the largest money laundering, terrorist-aiding bank in history).

For one, any info about GWB belongs on the GWB page, not this one. Secondly how bad does it look that a company which is on the UN's own fucking list of organizations involved in terrorism, is givven permission to do business either with or via the UN?

  • For example, Rosett debated Sevan on CNN, who pretty much trashed her claims

He trashed her claims with alot of ranting rhetoric and whining if I do recall, he never presented any evidence to back his ass up now did he?


Hmmmm......... I tire of these games, revise it if you want, but you better bet your ass that anything you put in will be well sourced, and no conclusions can be drawn from any source you find, only the info in them is relavent not any A to B to C, which I have to admit I had a hell of a time not doing myself, as I have made no conlusions that were not made in any source I found. TDC 23:46, May 5, 2004 (UTC)~

Language like fucking and you better bet your ass is unacceptable and only shows your contributions to wikipedia are inappropriate, TDC. Everyone got so sick of you that no one really wanted to waste the time and fight, Chancemill was nice and tried, but Rei did not see the page and everyone else thought someone else would be so kind to help out, and in the end you were the only one who really contributed to the "revision". BCorr, thanks a lot for your attempt of mediation, it is obviously our shame that we did not care enough. In the end you might have noted that the project failed. What now? Get-back-world-respect 23:58, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
As far as the language, I think it makes a rather nuanced point, dont you? It was not meant in a deragotory manner towards anyone, and if it was taken that way, well as the saying goes, TFB. But as far as the revision goes, I had no problem following BCorr's instructions.TDC 04:44, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
GBWR, I have absolutely no problem in coming to a consensus on this article. Cleary many points are going to be made, some valid and others bogus. I have come to a middle ground with Rei on issues before, and I believe I can do it again. Perhaps Rei is afraid about the little wager she made with me, I don’t know. But I am more than willing to solve this dispute, but I will not let a Stalinistic airbrushing of this event to occur. Capiche? TDC 04:57, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • It Wasn't Their Job To Have Anything At All To Do With Smuggling. What is so hard about this for you to understand, TDC? Should your boss start condemning you for not enforcing ergonomics standards at your workplace?
  • I have asked you *MANY* times to show where on earth Rosett said anything about ""This all took place after Sevan". She Never Said That. Point to where she said that! You have been asked many times to do so, and have never done so!
  • Then link to a longer clip? Have you not been reading this debate? Did you ignore where he referred to many of the allegations as "outrageous and exaggerated"? Did you completely skip over where I enumerated the falsehoods that you have been trying to claim?
  • "For one, any info about GWB belongs on the GWB page, not this one." - Oh, come on, if I tried to put that over there, you would complain till you turned blue in the face, and you know it. The largest terrorist-aiding bank in history. It is so famous as a terrorism-aiding bank that Rosett, in attempting to insult the OFF, refers to it as "a BCCI with a U.N. label".
  • "Secondly how bad does it look that a company which is on the UN's own fucking list of organizations involved in terrorism, is givven permission to do business either with or via the UN?" - Apart from your lovely use of language, that is (as usual) *another* false statement. There are some lists pursuant to specific resolutions, such as this. However, you've been so misreading the reports it's not even funny. The UN did not investigate the companies who purchased the oil or sold the goods - this was not their job, it was not in their mandate, or anything of the sort.. Consequently, they did not *discover* that companies like Galp International Trading Establishment - which was a subsidiary of Portugal's main oil company' (Galp Energia) - chose as a representative a company (Asat Trust) that was later (after they chose them) put on the list of companies that have associations with terrorist-aiding companies (al-Taqwa). You're talking about a "friend of a friend of a friend who's friends with terrorists" relationship, and you're condemning a body that did not have the power to investigate for this? What nonsense. The other one frequently cited is a Geneva based company called Delta Services. But wait! If you investigate, you find that Delta Services is related to Delta Oil from Saudi Arabia, which, while not declared to be a terrorist company, it had a "good relationship" with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
In short, do your homework. Here's some suggested reading: UN security council resolution 1409, which introduced the Goods Review List (GRL), and established the procedures for processing and approval of contracts for Iraq. After the establishment of the list, only contracts that were on the list would even get sent to the 661 Committee (named for res. 661) for approval. If you will just read the guidelines] established to meet res's 661 and 687, you will realize that they are solely responsible for checking to see whether the companies are trying to supply unapproved goods. It is not their job, nor do they have the authority to, launch investigations into companies. Rei 16:41, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Wasn't Their Job To Have Anything At All To Do With Smuggling. What is so hard about this for you to understand, TDC? Should your boss start condemning you for not enforcing ergonomics standards at your workplace?

The oil for food program via oversaw all oil shipments out of Iraq. Oil smuggling took place not only overland but via sea bound tanker as well. The US and British navies interdicted dozens of ships smuggling oil out of Iraq. Do you mean to tell me that with thousands of UN employees and UN contractors in Iraq, no one knew smuggling was going on? Annan did nothing to stop this, and the Oil For Food workers never said boo about it.

I have asked you *MANY* times to show where on earth Rosett said anything about ""This all took place after Sevan". She Never Said That. Point to where she said that! You have been asked many times to do so, and have never done so!

Last time I go over this for you.

The UN treated details such as the identities of Oil-for-Food contractors, the price, quantity and quality of goods involved in the relief deals, and the identities of the oil buyers and precise quantities they received as confidential. The bank statements, the interest paid, the transactions, were all secret as well. This all took place after Sevan began heading the program

Also according to John Fawcett, the co-author of a 70-page report on Saddam’s finances released in 2002 by the Washington-based Coalition for International Justice, the UN had been fairly open about the specifics of Saddam’s contracts during the first year of the program. From about 1998 on, however, it categorized the most germane details as "proprietary"—carefully guarding Saddam’s privacy in his business deals. Thus, there was no disclosure of such basic information as the names of individual contractors or the price, quality, or quantity of goods involved in any given deal—all vital to judging the integrity of contracts. 1998 was the year Sevan took control of the program (what a co-ink-i-dink) [www.cij.org/pdf/CIJ_Saddam.pd]

Did you ignore where he referred to many of the allegations as "outrageous and exaggerated"?

Oh yeah, I saw that, but what I did not see was a denial of the charges. Politicians often refer to allegations against them and their interests as outrageous and exaggerated, without flat out denying them. There is a difference between saying the statements made by Person X are grossly unfair, misleading, outrageous, and exaggerated and stating that the statements made by Person X are false. Kofi knows there is great deal of truth to these allegations, so he wont go on record as stating there isn’t.

"For one, any info about GWB belongs on the GWB page, not this one." - Oh, come on, if I tried to put that over there, you would complain till you turned blue in the face, and you know it.

I have no involvement in the GWB article, so do what you like to it, you will hear no objections from me.

(go ahead - try to find a reference to it from before then - I dare you). It was not on some "UN list of terrorism supporting companies"

Ohh, you dare me do you? Well OK then, I’m your Huckleberry.

The Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999 has added on 3 September 2002 the following twenty-five individuals and entities to its list (Al-Qaida section):

UNSC press release 7494 4 September 2002 18. BA TAQWA FOR COMMERCE AND REAL ESTATE COMPANY LIMITED, Vaduz Lichtenstein; (formerly c/o Asat Trust reg.) [6]

There are also a few other references to ASAT. Nice try editing out your challenge to me by the way.

I will no longer engage in your tit for tat arguments.

My contributions can be summed up thus wise: well sourced and factually correct.

Rei’s contributions can be summed up thus wise: Move along people, nothing to see here ………. nothing to see here.

TDC 18:14, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

You know, you're ignoring of Bcorr's recommendation not to intersperse is really annoying. Note that I'm not interspersing. Why are you?
"This all took place after Sevan" - TDC, that is *YOUR* quote. It's NOT in her testimony! It just plain isn't. For God's sake, the only place that line exists is here in wikipedia! [7] You're quoting yourself!
"From about 1998 on, however, it categorized the most germane details as "proprietary"—carefully guarding Saddam’s privacy in his business deals." For one, your link didn't work. Two, tons of things happened in 1998, including the changing of the company that did the inspections, and new UN resolutions. Three, it was designed to protect the companies, not Saddam.
" Did you ignore where he referred to many of the allegations as "outrageous and exaggerated"? Oh yeah, I saw that, but what I did not see was a denial of the charges. " - Oh, for God's sake! Who on earth would call something "outrageous and exaggerated", and consider that not to be a denial? That is so patently ridiculous. And how can you call your presentation of Kofi as being NPOV while not mentioning how he referred to most of the claims as being "outrageous and exaggerated"? And I'll just remind people that, among the many things that I listed above of your mischaraterizations, you have yet to document your claim that a consultant in Ghana had anything to do, whatsoever, with one of the few companies in the world who does international inspections getting the contract in an emergency situation.
"UNSC press release 7494 4 September 2002

18. BA TAQWA FOR COMMERCE AND REAL ESTATE COMPANY LIMITED, Vaduz Lichtenstein; (formerly c/o Asat Trust reg.) [8]" - WRONG. Oil for food didn't deal with Asat Trust - they dealt with a subsidiary of Portugal's state oil company - Galp International Trading Establishment. Why on earth aren't you reading what I post? I mentioned that quite clearly.

"My contributions can be summed up thus wise: well sourced and factually correct. " - You haven't documented a single one of the things that I challenged you on - see my list above. Not a single one. Go ahead - show your documentation. Rei 18:56, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

You are correct that Rosett does not say in these exact words that “This all took place after Sevan began heading the program”, I am paraphrasing. She states quite clearly that the cult of secrecy began in 1998 (her testimony), and this is when Sevan began running the program (my interjection).

John Fawcett, the co-author of a 70-page report on Saddam’s finances released in 2002 by the Washington-based Coalition for International Justice, is also very specific about a timeline and Sevon’s leadership of the program. [[9]]

http://www.cij.org/pdf/CIJ_Saddam.pdf

As far as Kojo Annan, it is speculation, and that is why it is not included in the most recent revision.

Asat was Galp’s legal representation so yes they did indeed have contact with the OFF program. I realize that a sheltered Iowan academic may not be well versed with the details of contract negotiation, but every contract negotiated passes through the hands of dozens of lawyers, each of whom puts their stamp of approval on it. As Galp’s legal representation, Asat’s name, quite literally, is on every single document that went between the OFF administration and Galp international. Due to the secrecy Sevan instituted in the program after he began running it, no outside people were able to see this, making this his own little playground. TDC 20:08, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for finally admitting that Rosett never accused Sevan. She did nothing of the sort. That is *your* insinuation, and it does not belong in the article.
Have you even read the report that you linked? Because it further argues against most of what you're trying to claim. For example, they talk about the Security Council's unanimous approval in 2002 of res 1409, which removes much of the little power that the Sanctions Committee had, by giving Iraq direct control over non-GRL items and giving UNMOVIC and the IAEA the final say over GRL items. They mention how Lloyds, and later Cotency, were only allowed to inspect trucks of goods paid for by OFF. They mention how until May of 2002, *any nation on the security council could object to any contract* (and you know very well that security council nations have the power to launch investigations, unlike OFF). The paper talks about the sanctions committee trying to stop the kickbacks to Iraq through all sorts of measures. The mentions of Sevan are actually quite good - for example, his response to the Iraqi Bank criticizing BNP, his criticism of the Iraqis in furnishing requests, etc. This paper says the exact opposite of what you're claiming it does! I encourage everyone here to read it.
Once again: OFF Worked With Galp. They had no power to launch investigations, so they had no way of knowing that Galp had hired Asat (which even *still* is a friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend who gave money to terrorists situation - do you deny this?). Do you deny any of this? Do you try and claim that the committee had the power to launch investigations? Now, you know who *did* have the power to launch such investigations and to block the contracts? That's right: members of the security council! BTW, I would love to see you back up your claim (you did *such a good job* last time, by trying to imply that Asat got a contract from the OFF  ;) ) that Asat was listed on *anything* that OFF got. Go on. Go ahead.

And quit making unbacked-up statements about Sevan. Rei 20:36, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Can we salvage something?

Yes, my attempt seems not to have accomplished much of anything. But I will make one final request. I plead with you to follow the guidelines I suggested even though the process I tried is over.

So please voluntarily abide by these guidelines:

  1. Sign all posts to the talk page.
  2. Make your comments after someone else's comments -- rather than interspersed among them -- so that it's clear what the original comment was an to reduce the feeling of debates and fighting.
  3. Avoid characterizing the politics, motives, POV, or objectivity of material added to the article. Simple explain what you disagree with and why you disagree based on accuracy or that it disagrees with your point of view and then explain briefly what yours is.
  4. Avoid extrapolation of the above, e.g., "X supports Y, so if X says ___, it must be…"
  5. Work from the assumption (or at least communicate and edit as if you believed) that no one has a monopoly on the truth, even if one is certain that facts or evidence is 100 percent clear.

Sadly, BCorr|Брайен 00:25, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

How much went for food?

The article's intro had said $46 billion went for food, etc. But 3 or 4 paragraphs later, it said only $27 billion. Which is it? And why such a large disparity?

I juxtaposed the two versions so contributors can see the variance more easily, when I rewrote the introduction.

By the way, have I articulated the controversy neutrally? If not, please cut and paste any biased sentences here in talk. --Uncle Ed 18:06, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Allegations of corruption

The Center for Individual Freedom, based in Alexandria, Virginia, claimed:

... that documents discovered after the liberation of Iraq revealed that the U.N.’s self-described flagship humanitarian program was wracked with bribery, kick-backs, smuggling, under the table deals and influence peddling. Among other revelations, evidence uncovered in Baghdad implicated long-time U.N. official Benon Sevan who was responsible for managing the program and reported directly to Secretary General Kofi Annan. [10]

A Washington Times editorial claims:

Most disturbing are Iraqi records that suggest Benon Sevan, the executive director of the Oil for Food office, received a voucher for 11.5 million barrels of oil from Saddam's manipulation of the program — enough to yield a profit of between $575,000 and $3.5 million. [11]

Bribes to get political support

Perhaps even more damning are allegations that various businessmen and government officials took bribes from Saddam in return for supporting his regime politically. Like the Iraqi-American businessman Shaker Al-Khaffaji, who "put up $400,000 to produce a film by ex-U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, which aimed to discredit weapons inspections in Iraq." [12]

Shakir Khafaji, who had close contacts with Saddam Hussein's regime, made $400,000 available for Mr Ritter to make In Shifting Sands, a film in which the ex-inspector claimed Iraq had been "defanged" after a decade of UN weapons inspections. (Financial Times, April 12, 2004)[13]

You assume there was some clean people involved in this bribes. All UN permanent members and UN itself are equally guilty, so seize focusing too much on UN. See the link [14]

NPOV dispute

I can hardly believe that anyone who has read the article would want to remove the NPOV notice. This article has several times more text about allegations it presents as facts although credible sources are missing and investigations have not yet come to a conclusion. Get-back-world-respect 13:46, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now that the first report is done, and virtualy all of the allegations have been found true, I wonder if I can remove the allegedly. TDC 17:10, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Are there any remaining NPOV disputes? I just did a quick readthrough, and it seems generally in keeping with what's being reported in the media. --Delirium 15:17, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


US/UK Complicity

I think its pretty ridiculous that this gets one sentence in the article:

It has also been alleged that USA and British government was fully aware of the scandal, but opted to close their eyes to smuggling because their allies Turkey and Jordan benefited from the majority of the smuggled oil.

I've added a quote, but this should be expanded on. Most of the illicit activity went through the US Navy and the US and the UK knew what was going on. --Freshraisin 19:25, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Actualy, none of it went throught the US or UK Naval blockade. It was all done over land to Jordan and Turkey. If you are going to bitch about the article, at least have your facts strait. And while the US and UK did know about smuggling, they did not know that proceded were going to bribe people like George Galloway. TDC 00:39, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
This article negeate your claim. Most of the oil were moved by sea, and yeah some went though blockade managed directly by US and the UK. [15] See paragragh under 'Facilitation' or quote "But it also said that the far bigger smuggling trade was carried out with tacit US approval. The report takes the example of a series of shipments from the port of Khor al-Amaya in southern Iran in the month before the US-led coalition began its 2003 invasion."
A claim made by a single source, from an unreleased report, that cannot be corroborated? I think I will wait and see this one pan out to be the bullshit that it most likely is. And for the record, I hate the word tactic. TDC 05:48, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
I guess I should be more clear, the portion of the oil which went through the Gulf went through the blockade, sorry I didn't spell that out. I'm also not sure what you are saying in your last sentence. The US/UK knew that illegal activity was going on and looked the other way, but thats ok because they didn't know who exactly was getting the money? It is pretty clear to me, and should be to any sane person, that spending inordinate amounts of time on allegations that amount to under a million dollars while brushing over tens of billions of dollars is ABSURD. Perhaps a bar graph is in order here. This is of course not to mention the allegations relating to George Galloway have been discredited, perhaps the fact that he has been an outspoken critic about the administration and the war is not a coincidence? --Freshraisin 05:07, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Once again, the US and the UK did know that illegal oil smuggling was taking place through Jordan, Turkey and Syria as well, many people forget that Syria was illegally buying oil from Iraq. As far as the allegation in the article, no evidence has been brought forth that the US/UK knew that Hussien had been bribing individuals through the use of oil vouchers. All investigations done in the security council by the US and UK were focused on what materials were coming in, not who was selling what to whom. Benon Sevan and the auditors, Cotecna, were supposed to be in charge of that. It was also the job of the auditors, not the security council members, to determine if prices were fair, which they were not, that deliveries were made, which they were not, and that the supplies were of adequate quality, which they also were not. If you have information to the contrary, please present it. I dont know where you are pulling the millions vs billions, from. Oil for Food was, smuggling not included, ripped off for billions of dollars, the millions, or more accurately hundreds of millions, was the bribe portion.
Galloway's guilt or innocence will not be decided by time and the facts at hand. The evidence against him is strong, and has only become stronger over the passing years. I suspect it is not too far a leap for someone who told Saddam: "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength and your indefatigability," to be on the take from him, especially when Galloway has admitted that donors to his charity were on the take.TDC 06:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
You forgot to mention what this evidence is, nor has it gotten stronger over the years. From the horse's mouth: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1616578,00.html

--70.112.34.179 15:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

If this article were truly NPOV it would also note that the US tolerated a great deal from Iraq while paradoxically failing to come to terms to end sanctions. It would also note that to simply say "the U.S. tolerated it" and was therefore complicit in what is happening now is intellectually dishonest because it ignores that democracies change their governments and different governments have different policies. The tolerance occurred under President Clinton and Bush moved to reverse tolerance for Iran's foibles when he took office, for which he is now roundly criticized by the same partisans who now complain that the U.S. tolerated Iraq.
And if we were really really really honest in this here NPOV Wikipedia, we would acknowledge that when this scandal first surfaced, a number of Wikipedia editors did all they could to minimize the scandal, shrug it off and mock it as a fantasy of the right wing. Now that the truth is rubbed in the faces of the deniers, we are now looking for ways to blame it on the U.S. and the U.K. The more things change, the more they stay the same. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
those editors were right.
The above anon comment illustrates the fantasy world that some partisans live in. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Page move

Any reason not to move Oil for food to Oil for Food program? I think I'll just be bold and start doing this. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 18:33, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I did it. But there are still many oil-for-food or Oil for Food references which ought to be changed to Oil for Food program. I wish I had a bot to do this. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 19:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The official name of the program is Oil-for-Food Programme. That's the official UN spelling. Dumbledore 03:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is the price right?

It says: "Sevan allegedly was given vouchers for at least 11,000,000 barrels (1,700,000 m³) of oil, worth some $3.5 billion." That works out to $318 per barrel. I don't know what the typical value of a voucher for a barrel of oil is, but that sounds awfully high. 66.203.191.64 00:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Should say 3.5million. This article needs an update anyways. TDC 00:52, May 18, 2005 (UTC)