Why should we give money to the US for Iraq if 80% of it 'disappears'?

[Spiffor]

Well, I see several reasons explaining the lack of accountability (they are of various significance):

- Local bosses, mobsters, influent priests and so on get some bones thrown to them, so that they keep quiet. A calm climate is of utmost importance to rebuild Iraq, and the resistance + angry demonstrations are already enough, so that nobody wants criminals and local potentates to make things even less calm.

- Many local suppliers / contractors etc. won't write contracts, and dealing with them will involve cash and parole. I think it is a big reason as to why so few documents tracing the money exist.

- Some of this money vanishes simply because it has been taken by someone between the oil rig and the CPA (oil rig managers, oil dealer, local governor, whatever...). I believe there is a general corruption climate in postwar Iraq, which will only stop when the US will finally decide to build their Forbidden Palace there.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by el freako
True, but how many other nations faced military action for breaching UNSC resolutions?

And the point remains that if that is your argument for the justification for the war then it is hard to square it with the US explicitly acting outside the UN (indeed in the face of UN disapproval).

The war is over with. And justifications for going to war were more than adequate.

The US didn't act outside of the UN... resolution 1441 provided the framework for the strike. Saddam violated resolution 1441. And the US didn't need another resolution.

[el freako]

Daft attempt at justification,

1441 did not specify war if it was not followed - as you are surely aware Fez.

[Gatekeeper]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why should we give money to the US for Iraq if 80% of it 'disappe

Originally posted by el freako
Saddam being a bastard to his own people - so what? why should we intervene here and not in North Korea/Myanmar/Zimbabwe etc?

I'll keep your faulty logic in mind the next time I see a little old lady getting mugged or raped. I'll be thinking, "Well, hey, I can't help *every* little old lady who's being mugged and raped, so why intervene here? I can't stop 'em all! Thanks for keeping my conscious clear, el freako!"

(Starts whistling the Mayberry tune)

Gatekeeper

[el freako]

Keep your own faulty logic in mind, Gatekeeper.

First off try reading my replies instead of going off half-cocked:

Originally posted by el freako
Agreed, but US non-intervention in all other hellholes does make me think that this reason is only a 'happy coincidence' for the US.

Also in the situation you described would you take the law into your own hands? - would you take it upon yourself to execute the said mugger?
I'm sure you agree that that way lies anarchy and the rule of the biggest bully.

Likewise the current tendancy of the US administration to ignore UN approval and world opinon is equally 'vigilante' in it's actions.

[DanS]

Are they claiming the US doesn't know where the money went or are they saying the US didn't provide them with their own personal copy of all of the financial records for the Iraqi provsional government?

The latter.

[SlowwHand]

"They" can stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

[pchang]

That is the same argument used to not pay UN dues.

[DanS]

The big irony here is that Iraq hadn't even had a published budget for decades and the CPA had one published on its web site in June for the remainder of the year.

These guys just want to bust our balls and the BBC is once again carrying a hit piece on America in Iraq.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why should anyone give any money to help rebuild Iraq if they don't get any say. The U.S. never gives money to anyone without strings attatched. Why should anyone else.

This is our mess. Stop trying to weasal out of it.

Different tactics, Che? "Our" mess? Bull****.

As far as missing funds, are they?
It takes more than coming to ACS and saying that money is missing, for money to actually be missing.



US rejects allegations that billions in Iraq funds are missing
1 hour, 32 minutes ago

MADRID (AFP) - The chief of the US occupation authority in Iraq (news - web sites) rejected allegations that billions of dollars in Iraqi oil revenue and other funds earmarked for the reconstruction of the country had gone missing in "opaque" bank accounts.

Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, said all funds were being spent or transferred in a "completely transparent" way and that auditors' accounting of CPA expenditures from those funds would soon be posted on the internet and provided to an oversight board.

"The entire accounts of the Development Fund for Iraq will be posted on the internet and made available on a regular basis to the members of the international board," Bremer said.

He said the CPA, in the absence of an agreement on the creation of the UN-mandated board until last week, had moved to hire its own independent auditor to go over the fund's accounts and that its findings would be made public.

"There is absolutely no question about transparency," Bremer told reporters at an international donors conference for Iraq at which the United States and others are expected to pledge billions in assistance.

"We are going to be completely transparent the funds are spent for the Iraqi people," he said. "I have absolutely no qualms about it, I don't think we have anything to apologize for. There are no secrets about it."

Asked whether the criticism was unfounded, he replied: "Yes, correct."

Earlier Thursday as the conference opened here, the British-based charity Christian Aid alleged that four billion out of an estimated five billion dollars (3.4 billion out of 4.2 billion euros) believed to be in the fund have "disappeared into opaque bank accounts" administered by the CPA.

The group urged any potential contributor at the conference to demand explanations before pledging any additional assistance, claiming that "no independent body knows where this cash has gone."

It said the "financial black hole" would only fuel suspicions that large amounts of the money in the fund were being siphoned off for large US firms and not being channelled to deal with Iraq's serious needs.

"The fact that no independent body knows where this cash has gone is in direct violation of the UN resolution that released much of it for the rebuilding of Iraq's shattered infrastructure," Christian Aid said.

Bremer admitted that the international board had not yet begun its work, despite having been mandated by the United Nations (news - web sites) shortly after the major part of the war ended.

But he blamed the delay on the membership of the board, which is supposed to include officials from the United Nations, World Bank (news - web sites) and Arab Development Bank and rejected charges that he and the CPA had obstructed its creation.

"That's nonsense," Bremer bristled when asked about the charge. "It is simply untrue to say we obstructed it. I've been anxious to get this board established."

He said he had tried to get the board running in early August and again in September but when disagreements arose over the body's "terms of reference" in conducting special audits, the membership refused to negotiate for six weeks.

"We heard nothing back from members of the board effectively until early October despite repeated efforts through our mission at the United Nations to get them to answer," Bremer said.

That said, he stressed that an agreement on the board had been reached last week and that it would begin its work shortly, independently of the CPA's own auditor.




"We have got an agreement," Bremer said. "We have completely agreed that we are going to be fully transparent. We're prepared to put all of it on the internet which anybody can review."

[DanS]

Yep. A ball busting exercise from beginning to end.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by el freako
Keep your own faulty logic in mind, Gatekeeper.

How's my logic faulty? It's built off the foundation you provided, a foundation I assume you laid with logic in mind.

First off try reading my replies instead of going off half-cocked

Half-cocked? Interesting. What will I be called IF I START TYPING IN ALL CAPS? My only mistake — if it can be called that — was responding to a post you contributed to this thread w/o scrolling down another six or so contributions to find out you had somewhat addressed the issue you raised. I guess I'm in good company then, generally speaking.

Also in the situation you described would you take the law into your own hands? - would you take it upon yourself to execute the said mugger?
I'm sure you agree that that way lies anarchy and the rule of the biggest bully.

Execute? Goodness, you go to the extremes, don't you? No. What I would do is call the police (the U.N.) and, in the meantime, step in to prevent further harm from being inflicted on the woman (Iraq) by her abuser (Saddam, et al.)

Problem is, most police departments respond within minutes of being notified that a crime or violation of the law is taking place. The U.N., OTOH, isn't exactly known for its speed, now is it? (Unless it deals with Israel, in which case it's pretty damn fast at condemning them — rightly so, sometimes, but not always.)

Does anarchy and rule of the strong lie in that direction (by me taking action before the police arrive)? Perhaps. But if it were a real police department, and not the U.N., that wouldn't be too much of a concern. They'd respond quickly. The U.N. does not. It needs to debate everything in its rarified atmosphere before taking real action. That's fine, I suppose, but it sure as hell leads to delayed action in the real world. If, indeed, any substantive action is taken at all.

A more pertinent question might be: What happens in the long-run if the world's problem-causers end up seeing the U.N. as nothing more than a glorified debating society? The answer: Many have seen it just as that, and have acted accordingly.

Likewise the current tendancy of the US administration to ignore UN approval and world opinon is equally 'vigilante' in it's actions.

Yeah, well, come back to me on that when France or Germany get theirs arses kicked in by a terrorist attack that kills 3,000 people in an hour (and then start turning up various terror plots against them elsewhere w/i the nation and the planet as a whole). I'd be genuinely surprised if, indeed, they sought nothing but compromise and action strictly through the U.N. following such an event.

I sure as hell don't think Bush has done everything right, but neither has the man done everything wrong. Far too many people seem inclined to view the man in extremes — either as a heroic president who can do no wrong, or as the Anti-Christ who's out to bring down the fall of humanity — and that signifies, to me, the most *dangerous* thing of all: the tendency for folks to settle into extremes. It's what led to Sept. 11, 2001, and it's what's dividing the world now.

May the real statesmen and stateswomen step forward.

Gatekeeper

[Kropotkin]

So they can't show where and how 4/5 of the money has been used? Well, I guess that's what they call collateral damage. As we know, collateral damage is always considered unfortunate but acceptable.

[Gatekeeper]

Funny, I haven't seen too many folks going ballistic over the fact that Syria is holding onto roughly $3 billion in Iraqi funds deposited there by Saddam. But they're sure spewing over a charity's fiscal allegation about the CPA!

Gatekeeper

[DanS]

So they can't show where and how 4/5 of the money has been used?

That's the impression left by the article. Btw, it's also completely wrong. But don't let that stop you!