The Dirty War for Oil: UN Oil-for-Food Scandal Implicates Putin Aides

[alexandra]

I don't know much about marxism. I don't know much either about capitalism. In fact I don't think we use these terms in an agreed, well defined way. I prefer consider them as theoretical analysis and studies, basically economical, of society. So, if we are discussing those systems, we could always go to the sources and see what they say about different issues affecting the development of society.

This is an excellent point, antfm. One can only judge a theory/perspective by reading the original sources - but it takes courage to read things that challenge the way one wants to view the world, and very few people have that sort of courage. It's so much easier to just not question the status quo, to just 'go with the flow'.

"Even an entire society, a nation, or all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the globe. They are only its possessors, its usufructaires, and like 'boni patres familias' (good heads of the household), they must hand it down to succeding generations in an improved condition".
(K. Marx, Capital)

I'm afraid that about this particular concern, what we are doing with the planet as a whole, what we are leaving to the generations to come, capitalism doesn't say too much (or worse, when it says something it seems quite scaring to me). It hasn't been difficult, however, to find a serious concern about that in a marxist foundational text. I really miss some environmental consideration in capitalism. The planet seems to remain in it as an infinite source of goods, which is a rather unrealistic, and I would say unscientific point of view.

This is why I am drawn to the marxist perspective - it deals with serious issues such as these, and doesn't sweep them under the carpet. I'm quite surprised no-one has 'jumped' on you for making these observations about the environmental catastrophes capitalism and its ethos of greed and profit-making fosters. The usual attack involves banal statements such as "There is no proof that there are environmental problems; scientists don't agree", etc, etc - even though a growing number of scientists are becoming more vocal at expressing their concerns:

April 27, 2005

California Scientists Issue Global Warming Warning
Challenge Governor & Legislature to Take Action

Sacramento, CA—Today, nearly 500 scientists from around the state called on Governor Schwarzenegger and California Legislators to aggressively reduce the state's global warming emissions. Their letter, published in the Sacramento Bee today, warned that climate change threatens California's future and said that the state has a "unique opportunity to play a leadership role." - Ref: http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=478

and

Early Warning Signs of Global Warming
"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system."
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2001
Ref - http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=503

and

Climate change is with us. A decade ago, it was conjecture. Now the future is unfolding before our eyes. Canada's Inuit see it in disappearing Arctic ice and permafrost. The shantytown dwellers of Latin America and Southern Asia see it in lethal storms and floods. Europeans see it in disappearing glaciers, forest fires and fatal heat waves.

Scientists see it in tree rings, ancient coral and bubbles trapped in ice cores. These reveal that the world has not been as warm as it is now for a millennium or more. The three warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles and volcanoes should have cooled us down. - Ref: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change

But no, it isn't *really* happening, apologists of capitalism will say; there's no *real* evidence...

 

[Pengwuino]

Burnsys, you have failed to source absolutely anything about your post. I see no reason to waste my time arguing with you since you will more then likely bring up continued arguments of un-sourced personal opinion. Right now I am staring at "at least iran didn't use WMD" and wonder why I am even bothering righting this 'end-argument' statement in the first place. But then again maybe your being sarcastic.

 

[Pengwuino]

This is why I am drawn to the marxist perspective - it deals with serious issues such as these, and doesn't sweep them under the carpet. I'm quite surprised no-one has 'jumped' on you for making these observations about the environmental catastrophes capitalism and its ethos of greed and profit-making fosters. The usual attack involves banal statements such as "There is no proof that there are environmental problems; scientists don't agree", etc, etc - even though a growing number of scientists are becoming more vocal at expressing their concerns:

But no, it isn't *really* happening, apologists of capitalism will say; there's no *real* evidence...

socialist nations contribute equaly, if not more then capitalist nations in regards to environmental destruction as shown by different studies. Since communism in many peoples eyes, never existed, we don't really know what its effects would have been. If you tak the Soviet Union to actually be communists however, it actually shows us an example of communism destroying the environment more then other methods of economy.

 

[stoned]

in communist russia there were huge absolutelly humongous national parks in siberia. no trees were cut and parks were under constant military supervision.
after collapse of russia, guess what multinational concerns found new source of cheap wood and destruction of amazon forrests looks like child play in comparison to the destruction of siberia.
looking for link right now.

 

[sid_galt]

socialist nations contribute equaly, if not more then capitalist nations in regards to environmental destruction as shown by different studies. Since communism in many peoples eyes, never existed, we don't really know what its effects would have been. If you tak the Soviet Union to actually be communists however, it actually shows us an example of communism destroying the environment more then other methods of economy.

Quite true. Communists (excluding angsty teenagers and people ignorant about Communism) are not concerned with anything but power over the mind of man. Environmentalism is just another bit of their propaganda.

 

[Burnsys]

Burnsys, you have failed to source absolutely anything about your post. I see no reason to waste my time arguing with you since you will more then likely bring up continued arguments of un-sourced personal opinion. Right now I am staring at "at least iran didn't use WMD" and wonder why I am even bothering righting this 'end-argument' statement in the first place. But then again maybe your being sarcastic.

Of Course i am beign sarcastic. and how can you say i failed to source all my arguments, It's us declasified documents that say US government where helping saddam hussein even when they know he was using Chemical weapons, and the one who says they had to secure the oil...

And it was the us defence department's spokesperson who said:

"When asked whether the U.S.'s conclusion that Iraq had used chemical weapons would have "any effect on U.S. recent initiatives to expand commercial relationships with Iraq across a broad range, and also a willingness to open diplomatic relations," the department's spokesperson said "No. I'm not aware of any change in our position. We're interested in being involved in a closer dialogue with Iraq"

And it was chenney who said:

"that members of the oil business could help the industry to become more effective by becoming active in the political arena and helping elect the right people to office"

And in reuters about cheney:

According to an examination of regulatory filings showed on Monday (July 24), as CEO he raked in $1.28 million in salary and $640, 914 in other compensation last year plus stock options worth $7.4 to $18.8 million depending on the company's future stock performance

I have show you the source of everything i post. but YOU haven't show anything.

 

[Pengwuino]

You just did a bunch of Cheney said "blah blah blah" or someone else goes "blah blah blah" and highly classified documents say this but I am going o interpret them as "blah blah blah". I used sourced facts, you used opinion and off-hand quotations. I think ill end this conversation as you seem to fully disregard any call for sourcing.

 

[Art]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857167/

Top Kremlin operatives and a flamboyant Russian politician reaped millions of dollars in profits under the U.N. oil-for-food program by selling oil that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein allowed them to buy at a deep discount, a Senate investigation has concluded.

The allegations -- which also include descriptions of kickbacks paid to Hussein -- are detailed in hundreds of pages of reports and documents made public last night by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in advance of a hearing tomorrow.

.

One of the people cited as receiving kickbacks was the British MP George Galloway who promptly hopped on a plane to challenge the senate committee. Now George Galloway is not somebody who's politics or opinions I would subscribe to in the least but to give him credit he tore the committees' findings and the committe itself apart. I watched the whole interview on television and he savaged them (successfully I might add) point by point. I don't know how much you guys saw on US television but if you can find a tape it is well worth watching for entertainment value. I doubt any senate committe has ever come up against somebody like this before and I doubt they'd ever want to again.
Point is, world opinion is Galloway won by a landslide so they they can chuck the report in the bin. All other allegations in the senate report against other individuals will also now be highly suspect.