When a brutal dictator is absolved of responsibility.

[Art]

Well, lookie here. The BBC says, in an unbiased fashion, that U.N. sanctions were largely responsible for the a failure to maintain sanitation in Iraq before the war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3037823.stm

Fears grow for Iraqi children

Barbara Plett

BBC Correspondent in Baghdad

The head of the UN Children's Fund, Carol Bellamy, says a sharp rise in acute diarrhoea is hitting children in Iraq already weakened by malnutrition.

Iraqi children face uncertain dangers

She is in the country to assess post-war conditions and to hand out school supplies as part of a Unicef push to get schools up and running as soon as possible.

Ms Bellamy said war-related damage was aggravating poor health conditions that existed before the conflict.

The breakdown in sewage and water treatment plants was the main problem, she said.

They had already been poorly maintained because of UN sanctions.

Nice when you can be the leader of a country responsible for misdirecting and stealing money from the people of your nation and not be at all responsible for this. Who knew how enlightening a lack of bias in reporting was?

[fansince62]

spot on Art!

[Yomar]

According to Unicef officials, it was difficult to deal with the problem before the war because the previous Iraqi government refused to acknowledge it.

[Art]

Yes, Yomar. The previous government didn't recognize the problem. The problem's cause, as outlined, was U.N. sanctions. But, again, don't see it. Defend it. That's what's needed.

[tex]

This thread got me thinking about where the BBC gets its money. I had no clue that it was state funded. Here's a snip from http://www.cambridge2000.com/memos/tv_license.html

The BBC is State television, but State television which is run by an elite nebulous clique rather than directly by the government of the day (which fortunately changes often enough not to get entrenched). The BBC is funded mainly by the television license, which is just over 100 pounds per year for anyone who uses a (colour) TV, whether or not the BBC is ever watched.

This kind of patronising and paternalistic funding system was perhaps appropriate in the 1950s but is not in the 21st century. It is a regressive form of taxation (the poor pay as much as the rich) and since almost everyone owns a TV it is a ridiculously inefficient method of collecting the tax, including armies of people roaming the land looking for people who have not paid the tax. It would make much more sense to use money from general taxation to fund the BBC, assuming it needs to be funded by the State at all.

Even people who do not have TVs would probably prefer to have the BBC funded from general taxation. If you do not use a TV, and so do not need a license, you are often harrassed by the TV licensing authority, who do not believe you ("surely everybody must watch TV in this day and age"). To pay 100 pounds of extra general (e.g. income or sales) tax every year is surely better than being harrassed by the State.

[Yomar]

you infer too much

http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/sector-water.html

[Yomar]

tex,

interesting article about the TV tax the British have to pay to fund the BBC, certainly questionable, but I found the referenced to the "nebulous elite clique" a little vague.

[Yomar]

Glenn X, luckydevi, Art and anyone else with an opinion on this, I would like to know if you consider PBS news biased as well. I'm not talking about NPR, but rather the national PBS news shows, specifically Lehrer and Frontline. You can probably guess that I don't consider these shows biased, but I was wondering if there was any common ground here on what constitutes bias.

[gbear]

To play devils advocate for a min:

Would you agree that the UN sanctions gave the gov even more control over a limited amount of money? The UN sanctions made the primary legit source of income the oil for food program. The oil for food program put money directly in the governments hands and basically killed any trade outside of that. I could see an arguement that the sanctions put the government spending more in Sadams hand, thus enabling him to steal or "appropriate" a greater portion of the money.

I don't know, it's not my quote.

[Art]

Yomar,

I can't really answer that. I assume it's heavily biased. I assume PBS has immense left-wing bias given it is a public station and likely maintains that agenda. However, I don't ever watch anything on PBS, so it could be the most unbiased, straight reporting in history and I wouldn't know .

[Glenn X]

Yomar, I'll respond to your question with a question of my own.

Since you find PBS to be unbiased, what do you think of Bill Moyers's NOW program? In addition, what do you think of ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, and CNN? Do you think you get the straight story from them? Or do you think they exhibit bias? If so, what kind of bias?

[Yomar]

nice to see I can get a straight answer out of you guys.

[Art]

I answered you pretty clearly and without ambiguity Yomar. Not sure what more you'd want.

[Blade]

I used to watch the McNeil/Lehrer report back in college... I remember thinking that it was very fair and unbiased in its reporting..... however, I also used to think the same thing about NPR back then too.

Honestly, its been so long since Ive watched anything on PBS, that I cant answer if there is bias there or not. But, since there is bias in EVERY news outlet, I EXPECT there to be bias in PBS news as well.

[tex]

Originally posted by Yomar

tex,

interesting article about the TV tax the British have to pay to fund the BBC, certainly questionable, but I found the referenced to the "nebulous elite clique" a little vague.

Sounded vague to me as well Yomar. I dug around and came up with a little more information.

The BBC is run in the interests of its viewers and listeners. Twelve governors act as trustees of the public interest and regulate the BBC. They are appointed by the Queen on advice from ministers.

The BBC’s governors safeguard its independence, set its objectives and monitor its performance. They are accountable to its licence payers and Parliament, and publish an Annual Report assessing the BBC's performance against objectives.

Day-to-day BBC operations are run by 16 divisions. Their directors report to the director-general, forming the Executive Committee. It answers to the Board of Governors.

Executive Committee

Runs the BBC in the public interest by:

Proposing key objectives

Developing strategy and policy in light of the set objectives

Operating all services within the strategic and policy framework

Board of Governors

Ensures the BBC serves the public interest by:

Setting key objectives

Approving strategy and policy

Monitoring performance and compliance, and reporting on both in the Annual Report

Ensuring public accountability

Appointing the Director-General and other Executive Committee members and determining their remuneration

BBC governors differ from directors of public companies, whose primary responsibilities are to shareholders and not consumers. BBC governors represent the public interest, notably the interests of viewers and listeners.

The BBC is established under Royal Charter. The current Charter runs until 2006. A separate Agreement, accompanying the Charter, recognises the BBC's editorial independence and sets out its public obligations.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/running/

[Glenn X]

Originally posted by Yomar

nice to see I can get a straight answer out of you guys.

Yomar, I'm still waiting to get a straight answer out of you as to how you define yourself ideologically.

And please don't say, "I'm an independent."

As Truman Capote once observed, "I've never met a true bisexual before." At the end of the day, a person's heart belongs to one camp or another (in this case, right-of-center or left-of-center), even if only marginally so.

[DaFunky1]

Originally posted by gbear

To play devils advocate for a min:

Would you agree that the UN sanctions gave the gov even more control over a limited amount of money? The UN sanctions made the primary legit source of income the oil for food program. The oil for food program put money directly in the governments hands and basically killed any trade outside of that. I could see an arguement that the sanctions put the government spending more in Sadams hand, thus enabling him to steal or "appropriate" a greater portion of the money.

I don't know, it's not my quote.

gbear... it appears from the following article, if true, that the UN knew about Saddam skimming money from the oil for food program, as well as bribes, and did nothing about it. I don't know enough about the program myself to understand how Saddam's regime got the money instead of the UN just getting paid before the oil was pumped and delivered. If Saddam was supposed to turn the money over to the UN, from the oil sales, then yes the sanctions would appear to have put government spending in Saddam's hands.

Link

THE NEW WORLD DISORDER

U.N. allowed Saddam to steal billions

Report says officials aware of graft from humanitarian program

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: May 21, 2003

1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Saddam Hussein expanded his multi-billion dollar fortune by skimming bribes and kickbacks from the United Nations' Oil-for-Food Program as U.N. officials looked the other way, according to an ABC News investigation.

The deposed Iraqi dictator took as much as $3 billion from a program intended to provide food and medication to his people after the U.N. sanctioned oil sales in response to Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

"Everybody knew it, and those who were in a position to do something about it were not doing anything," Benon Sevan, the executive director of the Office of Iraq Program, told ABC News.

Sevan insisted, however, he had no power to stop the graft.

The U.N. program stipulated all funds from the sale of oil must go into U.N. bank accounts in New York to buy food and humanitarian supplies. However, British businessman Swara Khadir told ABC News paying bribes was the only way his company could do business with Iraq.

"And because it was Iraqi oil we were talking about, it was bribing top Saddam officials," he said, noting he refused to go along with the bribes.

"They made no show of concealing it," he said, "because the U.N. was just turning a blind eye to it."

ABC said the U.N. Security Council failed to act on a complaint from a Russian oil dealer who said Saddam's son Odai took a $60,000 bribe without coming through with the oil contracts.

"Of course it troubled me," Sevan told ABC. "What do you think, I'm what you call a 'dodo,' sitting here what do you call, cold-blooded? Of course it bothers me."

Despite intense scrutiny, U.N. officials said, the Security Council allowed Iraq rather than U.N. administrators to choose which companies participated in the program.

Human rights investigator John Fawcett claimed many of these companies had suspect backgrounds, including everyone "from Mafia to terrorists to money launderers to anybody that wanted to make a quick buck."

Sevan conceded it was possible fraudulent companies could acquire approval but argued, "I am not an FBI; I'm not an investigation office."

Two of the companies apparently amounted to post office boxes in the tiny European country of Liechtenstein.

[smsmith40]

This thread got me thinking about where the BBC gets its money. I had no clue that it was state funded. Here's a snip from http://www.cambridge2000.com/memos/tv_license.html

You're not seriously suggesting this little rant as serious, objective opinion on the BBC, its funding arrangements, or how that is received by the British Public are you ?

As far as I can see this is one guys opinion, not a news site ?

[Yomar]

Originally posted by Glenn X

Yomar, I'm still waiting to get a straight answer out of you as to how you define yourself ideologically.

And please don't say, "I'm an independent."

As Truman Capote once observed, "I've never met a true bisexual before." At the end of the day, a person's heart belongs to one camp or another (in this case, right-of-center or left-of-center), even if only marginally so.

I didn't know that you wanted an answer...I'm an independent...I'm a heterosexual male...my favorite color is green...anything else?

[Glenn X]

How predictable of you. :snore: