Talk:Oil for Food Allegations

Fraud record?

I am against phantasizing about records to be set. What would be a fraud record? Who sets it at present? Enron? African leaders who stored ODA in their Swiss bank accounts? Get-back-world-respect 18:47, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Partisan article

This article is obviously partisan and extremely badly written. Who are the French and Russian firms and individuals? Who are the high ranking members of the Catholic church? The "friend of the pope" who once figured in the 2003 Iraq invasion article and could not even be found with google? This is just another attempt to abuse wikipedia for spreading propaganda. Get-back-world-respect 18:52, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is a link to the list, go read it. TDC 19:16, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a better link. I however find your way of presentation is clearly partisan rather than informative. You saw you could not keep your propaganda in the 2003 invasion of Iraq article so you just created a new one, including the same propaganda style we already asked you to stop. Get-back-world-respect 22:40, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, Rei suggested that due to its length and relevency to the Iraq War it be given a section of its own. As far as the propagandistic nature of the article, that is your opinion, due most likely, to the lovefest you have with Stalinazoids like Galloway and the UN. TDC 17:30, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Calling the UN "Stalinazoids" you just go on making a fool of yourself just as with your lost vote that the Soviet Union was a fascist state. Rei changed your edits many times because of the lack of neutrality, and he agreed with me on the 2003 invasion of Iraq talk page that the whole thing was not appropriate for an encyclopedia as long as it is unconfirmed. Get-back-world-respect 17:44, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

One does not usually cite one's political allies to bolster their arguments; at least not if they wish to be taken seriously. As to "appropriate for an encylopedia"— a great deal of the current events in Wikipedia are inappropriate for an encyclopedia by any modern standard, because we do not have the perspective of being able to see the outcome of current issues. Cecropia 17:51, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Since "we do not have the perspective of being able to see the outcome of current issues" I demand to wait with the creation of articles until there is some clarity or if one cannot wait it should at least be written in a very cautios way rather than by abusive TDC Get-back-world-respect 18:01, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"wait with the creation of articles until there is some clarity"—I might agree with that in other contexts, but it is not always possible due to the nature of Wikipedia. Rei and I agreed to "tread lightly" on Clarke until some of the dust settled, but Wiki is nevertheless chock full of the latest speculation and innuendo on issues, so trying to isolate out a significant subject like the Food for Oil Allegations is not feasible. As to TDC, I am not TDC, I don't follow his work, and can't comment on how he edits. I read over the articles I edit, and edit or not accordingly. I've noticed but left untouched the great majority of your edits on subjects of interest, though we disagree politically. Cecropia 18:12, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I fully agree with you that "Wiki is full of the latest speculation and innuendo on issues". I cannot agree with you that since this is so in other cases we must tolerate every rumour. That to me sounds like you are not allowed to judge a murderer because you cannot get all of them. I remember that the article about George W. Bush once contained a section about cocaine use allegations. Since it seemed to be completely unfounded it went to Nirvana where it belongs. Same should hold for rumours about bribery of Galloway who was acquitted several times. Get-back-world-respect 18:20, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Galloway, for the last time, was acquitted of jack shit. He won a civil suit against a newspaper.

Galloway was never charged in any way by the British gov’t in connection with Iraqi bribery.

The charges faced by Galloway were:

1. inciting Arabs to fight British troops

2. inciting British troops to defy orders i

3. nciting Plymouth voters to reject Labour MPs,

4. threatening to stand against Labour backing an anti-war candidate in Preston.

This is what he was charged with, this is what he was expelled from the Labour Party for. It had nothing to do with bribery allegations, which were a civil matter he took up with the Daily Telegraph UK. There were no criminal charges brought against Galloway in connection to the bribery allegations. The Labour party, btw, found him guilty of the first four.

Also, the documents to not name Galloway, but his charity Mariam Appea. Galloway has also admitted that he knew the charity’s supporters were linked to Hussein’s regime [1].

The initial report from KPGM is due out next month. TDC 18:39, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The term "catholic" only figures once in the source given for the article: Father Benjamin (4.5 million barrels) is a French Catholic priest who arranged a meeting between the Pope and Tariq Aziz, Iraq's former deputy prime minister. The Catholic church has thousands of priests, meetings between the pope and prominent people are arranged all the time. Twisting this into "high ranking members of the Catholic Church" is obviously partisan. Neither Annan nor cotecna figure in the only source given for this article, put them back in if you can provide sources. Get-back-world-respect 00:37, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Vote for deletion discussion

This article had been listed for deletion. The result of the discussion was a clear majority for redirecting to Oil for food, the information will be moved. Get-back-world-respect 12:55, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I saw no clear majority for redirection. We had best talk about this soon, or I will restore the original article. TDC 13:45, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

Seven vs. three is no clear majority? Are you a blind man from a [www.freerepublic.com room full of deaf people]? Get-back-world-respect 13:54, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What exactly was your point in leaving this as a blank page? Get-back-world-respect 14:20, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Now that I thin kabout it, I like the idea of a redirect. TDC 14:23, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)