Talk:Oil-for-Food Programme/Archive 1

message: I moved the following paragraphs from the main article:
:At the end of March 2003, a poll made by Agriculture.com indicated 73% of surveyed American farmers supported the invasion of Iraq. The American government estimated that from 300 thousand to 800 thousand tons of American grain could be sent to Iraq after the war, as urgent food supply. Some analysts said American exports would benefit from the war and claim the war would be a help for US wheat and maize, with current sales well behind last year sales. On the other hand, other American industrials argue that American agricultural market is not in such a good shape for Bush action was contrary to the UN advice. Mark Ritchie, from the Agriculture and Trade Policy of Minneapolis said, "After the 11th of September, the USA exportation was welcome all over the world. But in a very short time, that benevolence was lost, and farmers waiting for other countries' benevolence to sell their surplus were bound to suffer."
:On March 28, Secretary-General Annan, the United States, and Britain asked the Security Council to ensure that nearly $10 billion in goods Iraq ordered and already approved, including $2.4 billion for food, can enter the country when conditions allow. The governments of the 15 council members asked time to study the resolution, to review Iraq's contracts and make sure food and health supply get priority. German Ambassador Gunter Pleuger, leading negotiations for the UN oil-for-food program, expects that this humanitarian assistance program will be the biggest of the United Nation history. Another $2.1 million could be voted for Iraqi civilians to cover other emergency needs. U.N. officials estimate they may have to help 350 thousand refugees for everything from tents to food.
:However, the resolution into discussion makes clear that the chief responsibility for addressing humanitarian consequences of the war would fall to the United States and Britain if they take control of the country. This refers to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention on the responsibilities of the occupying power. Discussions at the Security Council meeting over this new resolutions are being made difficults by relationships between the different negociators. On March 27, 2003, US Ambassador John Negroponte walked out in the middle of a speech by Iraq's representative, Mohammed Aldouri, who accused the United States of trying to exterminate the Iraqi people. In private conversations, Russian and Syrian representatives argued against mention in the resolution of coordination with "relevant authorities," because they feared it might legitimize the invasion or a U.S. installed government. Consequently, the draft papers of the new resolution are only evoking the "necessary coordination" rather than putting any reference of coordination led by the USA or Britain in Iraq.
The paragraphs all relate to past issues. If anything can be salvaged from them they have to take into account the occupation, the fact the program is ended, and current situations. Cecropia 20:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moribund paragraphs 

message: I guess one of my main points on this subject is that you refuse to acknowledge what I have contributed, because they are nothing more than allegations. Allegations of corruption and graft have not been properly investigated and therefore deserve no place here and will not deserve a place here until a full and formal investigation has been completed. I could make the argument on a number of other Wiki articles. 
Henry Kissinger’s entry is devoted more to ‘’allegations’’ made about him than his background. Diebold has much more content relating to allegations that it is involved in schemes of voter fraud than on the company itself. ChoicePoint has more information on its alleged involvement in vote fixing in the 2000 election, than on the company. The IMF page has what one could consider a disproportional amount of the article dedicated to criticizing the article based on allegations. Augusto Pinochet’s entry has a raging debate as to whether or not to include a substantial amount of allegations that the CIA was involved in his coup. The allegations in these pages come directly and indirectly from the work of investigative journalists. 
These are just a few of the many topics I could have chosen as examples, but I think they make my point more them well enough. 
My contributions on the Oil for Food program and the allegations that surround it has all been researched by investigative journalists as well. Now, these may not be the garden variety left of center investigative journalism people like you are so in love with, but never the less these people, like Claudia Rosett (who testified under oath in front of the House Subcommittee on National Security.), put just as much effort into the work they do as Greg Palast. They just have to perform at a higher level of scrutiny and integrity than their left of center counterparts.  
Now if we as a community see no problem with articles, like the ones mentioned above, that devote a seemingly disproportionate amount of space to allegations made in large part by left-of-center investigative journalists, then why do some of us see a problem doing this in the Oil For Food article?
It seems that once again, there are two standards. TDC 19:59, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
: First off, I'm not involved in the Kissenger article.  Secondly, it is at most half devoted to allegations - something that I've said I would accept here.  Finally, the Kissenger stuff has been far, far, far more investigated than this.  Surely you will admit all three of those points.  I am also not involved in the Diebold, Choicepoint, IMF, and Pinochet articles.  While Diebold and Choicepoint certainly could use more balance (don't complain - do!) (both of them have been more investigated than this, especially Choicepoint), IMF is a 1:1 criticism/content ratio, and Pinochet - who has been extensively investigated - has perhaps a 1:7 criticism/content ratio.  None of these are even close to what you are trying to do to this article.
: You claim investigations.  What journalist showed that there actually was oil given as per the al-Mada list?  What journalist showed that Kojo Annan had anything at all to do with the Cotenca deal?  What journalist did any of this sort of stuff?  There is a reason that there are investigations currently - to see if any of this has merit..  What is hard about that for you to understand?  Why don't you have the ability to wait the short amount of time for the investigations before edit-warring over a 4:1 allegation/content ratio?  
: By the way - I'm still looking for a response to one of my earlier comments:  "Point to where in the document they mention Sevan.  Point to where they criticize the nationality of the companies.  Point to where they say the UN was involved in the overcharging.  Point to where they say that the contracts were given to leaders who were Hussein supporters.  Point to where they say anyone at the UN was criminally culpable.  Can you do any of that? "
:These were what you claimed the GAO said.  Prove it. --Rei
::I support Rei's points that the Pinochet article has by far less allegations than this one, that much more is known about those allegations than the ones TDC wants to include here and that some of what he writes has no sources. I also point out that TDC started his allegations based on an entry from clearly partisan "free"republic.com, that he is known to be an abusive user listed as a vandal, and that it is unwise to protect his version. A neutral party is needed. Get-back-world-respect 23:09, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegations and Investigation