Skip to comments.
Annan says 'concessions' made to Saddam
AP Wire ^
| 12/13/05
| AP
Posted on 02/13/2005 12:52:57 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-73 next last
To: anniegetyourgun
....there were concerns the Iraqi people would starve without it.All unfounded, I'm sure.
2
posted on
02/13/2005 12:54:58 PM PST
by
JoJo Gunn
(More than two lawyers in any Country constitutes a terrorist organization. ©)
To: anniegetyourgun
Oh, and now the excuses start.
3
posted on
02/13/2005 12:55:37 PM PST
by
Peach
(The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
To: anniegetyourgun
LONDON - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in an interview broadcast Sunday that "concessions" were made to Saddam Hussein to win his agreement to the oil-for-food program because there were concerns the Iraqi people would starve without it.
well, Kofi, they starved with them
4
posted on
02/13/2005 12:56:45 PM PST
by
sure_fine
(*not one to over kill the thought process*)
To: anniegetyourgun
"It was a political arrangement, it was a transaction that was intended to force Saddam Hussein to comply with the inspection requirements, disarmament requirements, and, in the process, concessions were also made to him," Annan said. Question. How do you force compliance with concessions?
5
posted on
02/13/2005 12:57:21 PM PST
by
joedelta
(Those who long for peace must prepare for war)
To: joedelta
U.N.-think is always flawed.
To: anniegetyourgun

And so your honor, I rest my case.
The flag of the United Nations is good for only one thing.

7
posted on
02/13/2005 12:59:05 PM PST
by
DoughtyOne
(US socialist liberalism would be dead without the help of politicians who claim to be conservative.)
To: anniegetyourgun
If you had to give concessions to someone in order to give them something, then it should be obvious that there is something wrong.
If we have to give concessions to a government in order to allow their people to be fed, then obviously the government is not interested in having the people fed. In this case, it should have been considered grounds for removal.
8
posted on
02/13/2005 1:00:36 PM PST
by
lepton
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
To: anniegetyourgun
The new talking point. Vig? Of course there was some vig. You Americans are so naive
9
posted on
02/13/2005 1:00:44 PM PST
by
ichabod1
(The Spirit of the Lord Hath Left This Place)
To: anniegetyourgun
"Saddam had resisted the scheme for several years and there was concern that if something is not done the Iraqi population will starve. And some of these concessions were the price they had to pay to get the scheme off the ground," he added. "In retrospect, one may criticize it. But at the time, because of the urgency and the need to help the Iraqi people, some concessions were made."
And THIS is when the Baghdad Butcher should have been taken out for the good of all.
10
posted on
02/13/2005 1:01:57 PM PST
by
JoeV1
(The Democrats-The unlawful and corrupt leading the uneducated and blind)
To: Peach
Oh, and now the excuses start.Really. Is this the, "We were corrupt and greedy to save the children", excuse.
11
posted on
02/13/2005 1:03:24 PM PST
by
elbucko
(Feral Republican)
To: anniegetyourgun
Interesting that Kofi and the gang were concerned that Saddam would simply starve the Iraqi people to death, but when "W" proposed moving in on this criminal, they threw roadblocks in the way, or actually opposed the idea.
I don't they were really concerned about the people though ~ sounds more like the money.
12
posted on
02/13/2005 1:04:04 PM PST
by
muawiyah
To: JoJo Gunn
I believe he was holding the ordinary people hostage and basically willing and was starving and failing to give proper medical treatment to many of them. So, like other frauds, he'd argue that we needed to do what he wanted - trade deals and other sanction busters - for the children. Now that we have liberated all of those people, though, no one is saying how onerous the sanctions were. It's as if the Saddam appeasers had never tried to tug at our hearts or use the victims of Saddam's brutal social policies as a way to persuade people to let nations trade with Saddam.
13
posted on
02/13/2005 1:04:58 PM PST
by
elhombrelibre
(Liberalism is proof that intelligent people can ignore as much as the ignorant.)
To: Peach
Isn't it odd that he doesn't seem too concerned about the starvation in Sudan? Or is he busy making "concessions" to the thugs there too?
To: joedelta
Pay him money? ( /sarcasm)
15
posted on
02/13/2005 1:05:04 PM PST
by
eyespysomething
(Vous pouvez vous rendre au garde de securite!)
To: joedelta
"How do you force compliance with concessions?"
Now let's not get too logical here, or we stand a good chance of solving some of these complicated international problems...
Even though you've (unintentionally, I hope) exposed the French/Liberal/Appeaseniks Master Game Plan, you may want to not force the issue, or there may be irreversible solutions...:o)
To: elbucko; Peach
Yep - hence, he had to make "concessions" to Kojo.
This group isn't competent or ethical enough to run concessions, much less make them.
To: anniegetyourgun
"Saddam had resisted the scheme for several years and there was concern that if something is not done the Iraqi population will starve. And some of these concessions were the price they had to pay to get the scheme off the ground," he added.
Annan uses the word "scheme" twice in this sentence. What does that tell you folks.
To: Walkingfeather
To: anniegetyourgun
Okay, what were the concessions?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-73 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson