THE UN NEEDS TO GO!
by Buck Evinger
The United Nations has to go! It took a while longer, but like the League of Nations, the UN has become a farce. It is a useless gathering of appointed paper pushers and pontificators whose main purpose is to bash the United States. Read the paragraph below while I bang my head on the desk.
The Bush administration yesterday pledged $15 million to Asian nations hit by a tsunami that has killed more than 22,500 people, although the United Nations’ humanitarian-aid chief called the donation “stingy.”
“The United States, at the president’s direction, will be a leading partner in one of the most significant relief, rescue and recovery challenges that the world has ever known,” said White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy.
But U.N. Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland suggested that the United States and other Western nations were being “stingy” with relief funds, saying there would be more available if taxes were raised.
“It is beyond me why are we so stingy, really,” the Norwegian-born U.N. official told reporters. “Christmastime should remind many Western countries at least, [of] how rich we have become.”
“There are several donors who are less generous than before in a growing world economy,” he said, adding that politicians in the United States and Europe “believe that they are really burdening the taxpayers too much, and the taxpayers want to give less. It’s not true. They want to give more.”
Yo, Jan, SHUT UP! Within hours of the tidal wave disaster the United States was springing into action with direct and indirect aid. Most of the relief organizations on the ground helping people would not exist without public and PRIVATE funding from the United States and it’s citizens.
And what is this about raising taxes? YOU JUST DON’T GET IT! The American people, unlike the French, Norwegians and other European talkers don’t have to be taxed into giving. When there is a need this Christian nation rises up and answers the call. We don’t need the elites telling us what to do and when to do it. That’s why America is the world lone superpower. AMERICANS! We work hard, we play hard and we are compassionate.
Right now thousands of churches and civic groups across this country are praying and organizing. Serivces will be held and relief will be sent, in the form of money, food and clothes. It is happening, now, and all without the prompting of some pompous government ass directing it.
Jan Egeland is typical of the mindset at the United Nations and more evidence of why it must be revamped or dumped on the trash heap of history. George Bush stood before the UN and said if they did not act in Iraq and enforce the resolutions the UN would become irrelevant. He was right. The United Nations has become nothing more than an America bashing bingo party that lines the pocket of crooks and gives people “smarter than you” a chance to tell you how it ought to be.
Stand back and watch how America leads the way in helping the ravaged nations of the fareast recover from this tradgedy. Then watch how the American consumer rebuilds those nations by purchasing their goods and services and creating jobs and industry. How can we do it? BECAUSE WE’RE NOT TAXED TO DEATH.
LAL
Sean Says: December 30th, 2004 at 4:51 pm
I agree completely, the UN should be disbanded, Kofi Annan and his son should be taken away in cuffs, and France, Germany, and Russia should be reprimanded for their aiding and abetting with Saddam in the Oil for Food Scandal. Most importantly though France, Germany, and Russia should be reprimanded for selling Saddam arms for Oil.
The UN has not had one single sucess story to it’s credit. It stood by while genocide took place in Riwanda (sorry if that’s spelled wrong), and it still stands idly by while genocide is happenning in the Sudan. It has completely destroyed Haiti almost to the point of no return. It is a useless organization, run by thugs, socialists, and dictators (funny those are all kind of the same, aren’t they). It was right in the middle of the Oil for Food scandal which is now estimated at 24 billion dollars. What else do we need to know….Just get rid of them.
Elise Says: December 30th, 2004 at 7:16 pm
Sean, I agree! I don’t know what good they have ever done! If someone out there can enlighten me, please do.
Leben Frie Says: December 31st, 2004 at 1:42 am
Are you aware that Cuba and the Republic of Korea are on the UN Human Rights Commission. What kind of nonsense does that make?
Elise Says: December 31st, 2004 at 5:34 am
Wasn’t Iraq also chair or some high ranking member on it? About the time US was taken off or at least not voted in again?
zoot potatoe Says: January 1st, 2005 at 1:13 am
I think the UN was stupid for telling us there were no WMD’s… how anti-american is that! It’s almost too obvious that they are there, even if no one has found them…
well, now, stingy america has given a pathetic 350 million dollars… we’re almost too stingy. Spain’s giving like, 64 million!
I think we should have given no money at all, there’s a wonderful sign of how willing america is to help other nations!
well, to clear all my sarcasm up…
1) its nice to blaim the UN for making money off the Iraq war, as cheney’s old halliburton surley isn’t…
2) America seems like the leading push against the UN, even as we were wrong when we went against their consenses and intelligence to go to Iraq for WMDs (that used to be the reason for war, now its “to free the Iraqis”… how can you argue against that and not look heartless? Sly republicans… damn them
)
3) We sure as hell are not stingy. Sure, some countries give 2% of their entire income on foreign aid, they have other countries giving them defense, the same cannot be said for us… of all foreign aid given out in 2003, a whopping 35% was America’s… we are sure as hell not stingy… but will that one poor guy be a push against the UN?
my two cents, lets see what gets utterly thrashed apart but the heavily anti-UN, pro Iraq and Bush people.
Sean Says: January 1st, 2005 at 3:32 am
To answer your comment Leben Frie, it makes absolutely no sense at all. The only thing more ridiculous would be to have China in charge of Human Rights and Sweden in charge of world capitalism. But that’s what the UN is all about leaving the fox to guard the chicken coop.
As for your comment Zoot, I, as well as most of us I think, are not really sure what the hell your trying to say. WMD’s were never the sole reason for going to Iraq. If you remember G.W. Bush’s speech that he made before the war, there were many reasons. Such as, continuing the War on Terrorism, since Saddam had clear ties to terrorist activity (like funding suicide bombers), and ending his brutal, tyranical regime. Not to mention the 14 UN resolutions that he broke over 12 years since the Gulf War. Freeing the Iraqi people was always part of the original plan.
As for Halliburton, they are the only people who do what they do except of course for a French company and we sure as hell are not going to hire them to get the spoils of war after OUR people died in the fight and France stood by. Furthermore, if you remember Clinton gave a no bid contract to Halliburton in Serbia, but I didn’t here anything from the blathering left when that happened.
Now to clear up one thing you said; the UN didn’t make any money of the Battle in Iraq. They made there money with Saddam BEFORE the battle in Iraq with the Oil for Food scandal (now estimated at 24 billion). That’s why they were against us going to war with Iraq. Kofi Annan also oversaw the UN inspectors, and made sure they never found any weapons…not even the Chemical/Biological/Nuclear programs that we found evidence of after we entered Iraq.
My advice would be to stop trying to sound nuanced and just come out and say what your trying to say. You know just straight talk, then we can have a meaningful back and forth forum.
P.S.: We were the first people in the world to open our wallets and our check books (both publically and governmentally) to aid the victims of the tsunami disaster, as well as sending military and medical aid.
rmcdouga Says: January 1st, 2005 at 8:17 am
Here is straight talk: Buck, Sean and a few others are a bunch of ignorant, misinformed, paranoid freaks. So little of what they write bears any resemblance to the real world; so little in fact that none of it warrants even a reply, except to ask them to reflect for a second on what in fac the UN is. In case the clusless dung that passes for brain draws a blank (which I am sure it will), here is a hint: the UN is a “member-driven” organization that is accountable to its members. And who are its members? Doh, it is … states, including the US, which sat on the committee, and authorized every transaction related to the Oil for Food program. So if the UN is crooked, then the US made it that way.
Sean Says: January 1st, 2005 at 9:15 am
rmcdouga,
Your straight talk is as crooked as a cork screw. It’s riddled with insults and lies, and no facts what so-ever. The US never okayed oil vouchers to countries around the world to trade with Saddam at a reduced rate, and we certainly never okayed them to sell weapons to Iraq.
Miracle Says: January 1st, 2005 at 3:37 pm
I am pissed at the lack luster reporting that made headlines of politiicians using this to sling accusations of being stingy at Bush. I do not like Bush. This was not the time. How are we supposed to use this golden opportunity”" (another sick phrase) if our own media validates this politically fed issue? I am sick of being portrayed as something I am not. ALL OF US KNOW THAT WE STEP UP TO THE AID AND OUR GENEROSITY IS HUGE. The private sector makes up more than goverment contributions. Yet all over the world once again each citizen takes the heat and is subject to hate because of political crap and truly stupid news reporting. I just do not get it. They should take responsibility for Americans being murdered or beheaded or burned in a tower because of thier truly uninformed and really empty reporting.
In addition, Indonesia, for example, repeatedly denied knowledge of terrorists that were known ot have funded and met with the 9-11 hijackers. Asia is over run by terrorists. We need to channel our efforts through organizations such as UNICEF and be careful to whom and how much money we are giving.
Do you really think it is not possible that our generosity (as has happened in the past) could not end up paying for more attacks against us.
It is a crazy world and my heart and money, just like millions of private American citizens goes out to the victims. Politicians and media have made me personally appear to be selfish and uncaring and propogate the hate. Iwonder if we could sue for defamation of character if not hang them all by their nails.
Elise Says: January 1st, 2005 at 9:25 pm
Miracle, you are so right. Our media is so liberal until I think that causes the biggest part of our problems. I said it before and I will say it again. If it was necessary to report the prison abuse over there – report it and then go on to other news. It was totally unnecesary to show the photos over and over and then if they could find others they considered worse, the made sure it was the headlines and those photos
shown over and over until they build up a frenzy of hate, which is taken out on our troops. It doesn’t make sense to me.
rmcdouga Says: January 1st, 2005 at 9:58 pm
Sean (and others of his ilk),
Fact #1: the Oil for Food program in all its intricacy was created by the Security Council (in Resolution 986 http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1995/scres95.htm) and the Council retained oversight of the program. In case you did not know, the US has a veto in the Council, so one can assume that the US agreed with the regime.
Fact #2: the “661 Committee” was established to oversee EVERY transaction under the program, and the US had a representative on this committee and also a veto (go ahead, type 661 Committee into Google and see what you get. Here is a starting point: http://www.oilforfoodfacts.org/facts).
Fact #3: Even Volcker has acknowledged that most of the illegal revenue from oil sales came from smuggling that took place outside of the OforF program. The UN had no responsibility for enforcement of those illegal sales. Who did, you ask? Well, it was the multinational Maritime Interception Force (MIF), which surprise, surprise was led by the US.
Fact #4: the 661 Committee was informed of price irregularities in legal sales, and the MIF and Security Council were both informed of illegal smuggling. In neither case did the US, which had significant control over all of these bodies, act to stop it, despite the request to do so from the UN staff.
Wake up, Sean, and you will see the facts all around you, if you cared to look. A starting point would be the link above, or this one:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilindex.htm.
Of course, your response will be that these are all ‘liberal’ sources that are propagating anti-American lies to undermine your Glorious Leader, Bush. Since the only facts that you will accept as ‘Truth’ are those that confirm your right-wing paranoid fantasies about a corrupt UN system that is out of control, there is really no set of links that will satisfy you.
You see, it is not that you think the UN is simply corrupt; you can’t stand its existence; you can’t stand what it stands for: international democracy and the idea that ALL states are created equal and peoples are equal (even though even that is not true because the US along with four others are more equal). You can’t stand the UN because it risks acting as a restraint on the unqualified exercise of American power around the world (i.e. aggression). So while you say you are pro democracy, your actions and your beliefs reveal that you are actually anti-democracy when such democracy interferes with your ideologically-driven fantasy about American greatness.
Elise Says: January 1st, 2005 at 11:42 pm
rmodouga, where do you get all that bull you are spouting.? And where are you from? You sound like someone who knows nothing of how Americans think at all! And that is the problem! Unless you live in this land you don’t have any idea what you are talking about. If you do live her, you need an attitude adjustment. And while not speaking for Sean or anyone else, I don’t see any good that the U. N. does. I can’t stand its existance. I would like to see us get out of it. Each country looks out for their own welfare and to Hell with any other country that is not lining their pockets.
rmcdouga Says: January 2nd, 2005 at 3:07 am
Oh, dear Elsie, I think it is you who does not understand what Americans think. Try reading this, if you can stomach information that runs counter to your beliefs: http://www.americans-world.org/digest/global_issues/un/un_summary.cfm
It is not Americans that dislike the UN, it is only some Americans (including your present leader), generally chauvinists who believe that American is somehow a superior place and therefore should not be subject to any outside controls on its actions whatsoever, even when those outside controls are designed to protect non-Americans against American aggression. People like you believe that America has a God-given right to kill non-Americans with impunity. Did it ever occur to you that people in other parts of the world could not care less about what happens in America, as long as America does not engage in an imperialist foreign policy designed only to take things for Americans at the expense of others.
Concerned American Says: January 2nd, 2005 at 4:11 am
Couldnt have said it better Elise. Well done =)
DE Says: January 2nd, 2005 at 5:38 am
Copy of my most recent email to the White House:
To the office of the President
of the United States of America;
To the office of the Vice President
of the United States of America;
Greetings;
The Bush-Cheney enterprises, including Haliburton, CACI, Blackwater, K. B. R. and the other sociopaths of the Bush-Cheney team, have blown up at least a half a BILLION DOLLARS A DAY in Iraq for the past year and a half, and they would not grant a BILLION dollars to the United Nations to help the 12 nations hit by the massive earth quake and tsunami.
That is simply disgraceful and pathetic.
D.E. Williams
On a slight tangent to the above:
An excerpt from “War on my mind”, By Russ Baker
Russ Baker says Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in 2000
(Quote)
“Two years before 9/11, candidate Bush was already talking privately about attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer.
“Houston: Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.
“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”
(End Quote)
(Russ Baker is an award-winning independent journalist who has been published in The New York Times, The Nation, Washington Post, The Telegraph (UK), Sydney Morning-Herald, and Der Spiegel, among many others.)
The entire “Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in 2000” article is available from the following site:
http://www.russbaker.com/Guerrilla%20News%20Network%20-%20Bush.htm
That is simply disgraceful and pathetic—and disgusting.
More articles that everyone in the White House should know:
* An Annotated Overview of the Foreign Policy Segments of President George W. Bush’s State of the Union Address
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0301souann.html
* U.S. Travesty, Terrorist Atrocity and U.N. Tragedy
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0308unbomb.html
* FPIF Statement on the War (in Iraq)
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0303stmt.html
* United Nations News Center (Focus on Iraq)
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=50&Body=Iraq&Body1=inspect
Last, but not least…
* 100 Mistakes for the President to Choose From (that he made… even though he said he made none)
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=64326
All the above leads me to state the following:
With all the information I have seen which attests to the fact that prior to the 9-11 events: George Bush and Dick Cheney had already intended on attacking Iraq; That the CIA had high level demands from the White House to tone down threats from Osama bin Laden and inflate fabricated threats allegedly about Saddam Hussein—this entails an elaborately designed scheme to try to garner support of the populace of our nation, by striking the weakest nation in the Middle East, just because George Bush COULD DO IT, in hopes of generating political clout, by prostituting the military might of the United States of America, in devastating a nation of innocents who had nothing to do with any of the 9-11 events, and when such an illegal invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq was not the result of any threat to the US or any of its assets–then that attack was a crime against Humanity, and all of the perpetrators of said crime, Dick Cheney, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, the owners of Haliburton, CACI, Blackwater and Kellogg, Brown & Root, et al are all world criminals who are also world terrorists of the gravest kind, having killed well over 100,000 innocent Iraqi people, in the guise of doing something good for the people of the United States of America, which in itself is perhaps the greatest tragedy and the greatest sham in history, with the exception of the atrocities committed by Stalin and Hitler.
Last, but not least:
The United States of America does not have a volunteer military.
Get that through your thick skulls. Those men and women of our beautiful nation did not have any choice, except to declare by going AWOL that they were against going into Iraq; The very fact they were complicit in going into Iraq and attacking and laying waste to a sovereign nation that is believed to be the cradle of our civilization, in NO WAY STATES THEY WERE IN SUPPORT OF THE BUSH-CHENY PLAN TO ATTACK IRAQ.
In our country, men who do not register for the Selective Service, to have their name put on a list so they may be hounded down like a common dog hounding a wet duck that was just shot, forfeit any opportunities for College and Government aid for their Education and a number of other benefits granted to all people, except to men after they reach their 18th birthday.
IF THERE WAS NOT SUCH A PROGRAM AS THE SELECTIVE SERVICES, AND IF ALL THOSE DELIBERATE LIES WERE NOT TOLD TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY GEORGE BUSH AND HIS CO-HORTS ABOUT SADDAM HUSSEIN AND THE IMAGINED REASONS FOR GOING IN AND INVADING IRAQ, GEORGE BUSH AND DICK CHENEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE HUNDREDS OF BAKE SALES TO RAISE THE MONEY TO BRIBE THOSE MEN (AND WOMEN) TO HAVE BELIEVED THAT B.S. AND TO HAVE GONE FOR THAT LUNEY SCHEME.
I have over 25 years of volunteering for our great nation. I would not, nor have I ever done anything to deliberately harm another living being, and everything I have ever done as a volunteer was with my full consent, and I was never coerced, bribed, lied to, threatened or cheated, in order for me to do the many volunteer activities I have done—unlike all the men (and women) who were sent to Iraq were treated, and why they were all so terribly wronged, and why our country is suffering as a result of their hardships.
I have said my peace.
D. E. Williams
I reserve the right to share the above piece with as many people in any NGO, PVO and group I see fit.
Sean Says: January 2nd, 2005 at 8:55 am
To rmcdouga,
Where did you get all that from georgesoros.com ?
Oh and your right, I can’t stand the existance of an organization which sides, aids, abbets, and is ultimately run by thugs, dictators, and terrorists.
How can the UN stand for democracy when it defends the actions of nations like the former Iraq (run by a brutal dictator), Vietnam (a communist country), the Sudan (they won’t lift a finger to stop the genocide), and on, and on, and on. They definitely do seem to want to restrain the U.S. You definitely have that right. While they allow the free operation and existence of dictators, terrorists, and other monsters as long as they pay them enough money. It seems like the UN is anything but pro-democracy.
No, no it really is YOU rmcdouga. You who doesn’t have a clue what most Americans think. The fact is, is that the majority of Americans DO think the UN has become a corrupt, useless organization, and for your information America is a Superior place. It is the land of freedom, opportunity, and justice, and it is only people like you who side and support terrorist dictators who do not think America is a superior place.
Oh and when our national security and safety is at stake we are not and will not be subject to any outside controls including a “global test” as your brain dead candidate, John Kerry put it. We will act to protect ourselves and our way of life, and if you think that the other terrorist nations do not care what happens in this country apparently you have already forgotten what the Palestinians did the day after 9/11. They danced in the streets and rejoiced. I wonder, were you dancing with them?
Elise Says: January 2nd, 2005 at 10:26 pm
rmcdougal, you still have no idea what you are talking about. You don’t even come close to what we think. But you are right about one thing – People in the other parts of the world don’t care about America. But if they can get a handout, they will pretend. They sit back on their laurels and criticize the way we live and think they know the way we think, but you know, as long as the everyday Americans I know and know of (not the Hollywood bunch but both democrats – not liberals- and republicans – not fanatics ) run this country the way we see fit, I don’t much give a crap what the other countries think. They can all stay home and run their own countries and leave us the Hell alone.
rmcdouga Says: January 3rd, 2005 at 7:45 am
Well, well, why does it not surprise me that neither Sean nor Elsie had one single word to say about the FACTS I presented… even though it is they who asked for facts. I guess they only want facts that confirm their view of the world. Instead they simply reasserted their mindless propositions about American righteousness and to hell with the rest of the world… Hate to burst your bubbles, guys, but GWB’s behaviour notwithstanding, it is not true that if you say something often enough it will become true.
In the end, though, I guess since the US exercises the most influence over what the UN does then I agree with with you, Sean: the UN is run by a bunch a thugs and dictators. And when the US is not practising its thuggery in the UN, it is supporting thugs and dictators around the world, as long as it is in US interest of course. But as for the actual UN staff – like Annan – they really don’t have any control to do anything that the Members (i.e. the US and others) don’t agree to. So go on, condemn the UN, but you are really just condemning your own government.
On another front, Sean, what is the logical conclusion of your thinking, that the US should have no constraints whatsoever to act anywhere in the world? Invade any country, kill whomever it wants for whatever reason, take whatever resources it needs from anywhere, develop and use whatever weapons it sees fit, as long as all of the above is in the interest of the the US? What about the rights of people of other countries? Do they not have rights to be free from US aggression? I take it from what you write that anybody, anywhere in the world that doesn’t agree with America is un-American, and therefore fair game to be subject to American interference? If that is the case, then you really don’t have much respect even for the US constitution – you know, the parts about individual freedom from oppression. Oh, I am sorry, human rights only belong to Americans, everybody else can just eat the dust off the bottom of the boots of US storm troopers as they tromp through. And you wonder why the US image in the world is heading down. (I know, Sean, you don’t care about the US image in the world, spare me the rant please). Answer this, though, if a democratic election brings to power a Socialist government somewhere, should the US intervene to overturn the election? If yes, then what does that say about so called promotion of democracy.
As for the Palestinians dancing in the streets, I happen to think the behaviour was appallingly insensitive, but put yourself in their shoes. For more than 40 years, Palestinians have seen their young shot, their elders humiliated and their homes destroyed, all with guns, tanks and bulldozers marked with “Made in the USA”. For them, the buildings coming down didn’t represent 3000 lives, it was simply the one small abstract minute in their lives where they were not the victims of violence, and the main sponsor of Israeli aggression was getting a kick in the shins. The fact that it was one of their own (i.e. an Arab) doing the kicking simply let them feel a little thrill of empowerment that they have been denied their whole lives. I assure you, though, that once those Palestinians realized the scale of lost innocent lives, they were both remorseful at their own lack of judgment and sympathetic to the families of the WTC victims. I doubt that you yourself ever give the same thoughts to the families of innocent Palestinians and Iraqis (and yes, many of them are innocent) killed by the Israeli and US occupation forces.
And Elsie, most countries would love to leave you the “Hell alone”, but you have to leave them the hell alone first.
And Suzanne, what is with this “because we are all AMERICANS” crap!! Do you honestly believe that only American’s enjoy open debate and freedom of expression; do you really think that the ability to peacefully disagree is somehow inherently an American trait, denied the rest of the world by some genetic flaw! Wake up folks! The sooner you lose this America the Great arrogance, that ill-informedly guides US foreign policy, the sooner you, and everybody else, will be safer from terrorism.
BonnieM Says: January 3rd, 2005 at 2:13 pm
rmodouga, Get of Suzanne’s back! She was absolutely correct. She did not say that others can’t openly debate. She said we could because we are Americans. I vote for you – to be the most obnoxious of any of the post.
Suzanne Says: January 3rd, 2005 at 5:29 pm
I am back, and thank you for your comments,
But Bonnie, why would you vote that modouga is obnoxious, though he may be, remember, we are all entitled to our thoughts, be however sick and obnoxious they are!!
Hey, have you read some of those sent to me?
I wonder who is the most obnoxious, or let us use a few better words; close minded, uninformed, brain washed, and stupid. I think those words comes a bit closer.
Nice talking with you Bonnie
Serb Says: January 3rd, 2005 at 7:54 pm
The United States of America, being the “stingy” nation that we are, has now pledged $350 million dollars, making us the second-highest donor (second to Japan who has donated around $500 million dollars) for the relief effort. We have sent three naval ships carrying several thousand Marines, helicopters and various foodstuffs as well as other relief material to the disaster area. The USS Abraham Lincoln is in the Indian Ocean right now, carrying out relief efforts.
Vive la US.
Serb Says: January 3rd, 2005 at 7:55 pm
Obnoxious to stupid, eh Suz? Maybe we should cease the name-calling and get on with the debate.
Suzanne Says: January 3rd, 2005 at 9:57 pm
Deal!
BonnieM Says: January 4th, 2005 at 12:04 am
I am all for it, too! Stop calling names and debate! Sorry Suzanne. I know you don’t need anyone taking up for you.
Suzanne Says: January 4th, 2005 at 5:01 am
Ok do we all have a deal, not more name calling including to my friend from the UK.
Agreed?
Actualy I realy like all of you, a bunch of smart people keeping me on my toes. I have never before done this sort of thing, so if I make mistakes, remember, “I am just a girl, or sorta”
suzanne
DE Says: January 8th, 2005 at 8:19 pm
For any liberals or conservatives who want to know more than just biased personal opinion about the U.N. Oil For Food Program, and who are interested in discovering the real facts on that program, here are some excerpts from an article Published on Sunday, December 12, 2004 by the Independent / UK
The Oil-For-Food ‘Scandal’ is a Cynical Smokescreen by Scott Ritter:
United States Senators, led by the Republican Norm Coleman, have launched a crusade of sorts, seeking to “expose” the oil-for-food programme implemented by the United Nations from 1996 until 2003 as the “greatest scandal in the history of the UN”. But this posturing is nothing more than a hypocritical charade, designed to shift attention away from the debacle of George Bush’s self-made quagmire in Iraq, and legitimise the invasion of Iraq by using Iraqi corruption, and not the now-missing weapons of mass destruction, as the excuse.
The oil-for-food programme was derived from the US-sponsored Security Council resolution, passed in April 1995 but not implemented until December 1996. During this time, the CIA sponsored two coup attempts against Saddam, the second, most famously, a joint effort with the British that imploded in June 1996, at the height of the “oil for food” implementation negotiations. The oil-for-food programme was never a sincere humanitarian relief effort, but rather a politically motivated device designed to implement the true policy of the United States – regime change.
Through various control mechanisms, the United States and Great Britain were able to turn on and off the flow of oil as they saw best. In this way, the Americans were able to authorise a $1bn exemption concerning the export of Iraqi oil for Jordan, as well as legitimise the billion-dollar illegal oil smuggling trade over the Turkish border, which benefited NATO ally Turkey as well as fellow regime-change plotters in Kurdistan. At the same time as US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was negotiating with Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov concerning a Russian-brokered deal to end a stand-off between Iraq and the UN weapons inspectors in October-November 1997, the United States turned a blind eye to the establishment of a Russian oil company set up on Cyprus.
This oil company, run by Primakov’s sister, bought oil from Iraq under “oil for food” at a heavy discount, and then sold it at full market value to primarily US companies, splitting the difference evenly with Primakov and the Iraqis. This US-sponsored deal resulted in profits of hundreds of million of dollars for both the Russians and Iraqis, outside the control of “oil for food”. It has been estimated that 80 per cent of the oil illegally smuggled out of Iraq under “oil for food” ended up in the United States.
Likewise, using its veto-wielding powers on the 661 Committee, set up in 1990 to oversee economic sanctions against Iraq, the United States was able to block billions of dollars of humanitarian goods legitimately bought by Iraq under the provisions of the oil-for-food agreement. And when Saddam proved too adept at making money from kickbacks, the US and Britain devised a new scheme of oil sales which forced potential buyers to commit to oil contracts where the price would be set after the oil was sold, an insane process which quickly brought oil sales to a halt, starving the oil-for-food programme of money to the point that billions of dollars of humanitarian contracts could not be paid for by the United Nations.
The corruption evident in the oil-for-food programme was real, but did not originate from within the United Nations, as Norm Coleman and others are charging. Its origins are in a morally corrupt policy of economic strangulation of Iraq implemented by the United States as part of an overall strategy of regime change. Since 1991, the United States had made it clear – through successive statements by James Baker, George W Bush and Madeleine Albright – that economic sanctions, linked to Iraq’s disarmament obligation, would never be lifted even if Iraq fully complied and disarmed, until Saddam Hussein was removed from power. This policy remained unchanged for over a decade, during which time hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result of these sanctions.
While money derived from the off-the-book sale of oil did indeed go into the purchase of conventional weapons and the construction of presidential palaces, the vast majority of these funds were poured into economic recovery programmes that saw Iraq emerge from near total economic ruin in 1996. By 2002, on the eve of the US-led invasion, Baghdad was full of booming businesses, restaurants were full, and families walked freely along well-lit parks. Compare and contrast that image with the reality of Baghdad today, and the ultimate corruption that was the oil-for-food programme becomes self-evident.
Scott Ritter is a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq (1991-1998) and the author of ‘Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction.
See the entire article at:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1212-23.htm
Thank you and bless you.
elise Says: January 9th, 2005 at 2:02 am
Well, DE, you see I don’t believe Scott Ritter knows as much as he thinks he does. You will need to find someone with more credibility to convince some of us.
rmcdouga Says: January 9th, 2005 at 7:16 am
Why do I feel, Elise, that the only person who you would accept as having enough “credibility” would be the one who says exactly what you want to believe! It is hard to imagine someone with more knowledge of the shading dealings in the OFFP than Ritter, who was US arms inspector in Iraq! What in your mind undermines his credibility, other than the fact that he disagrees with current administration.
elise Says: January 9th, 2005 at 7:58 pm
Well, Rmcdouga, Let us see! Maybe someone who, he himself, did not show indications of being on Sadamm’s payroll.
Serb Says: January 10th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
About Iraq:
Iraq Police recently announced that the Deputy Police Chief and his son were gunned down by insurgents while traveling to work yesterday. The son was an Iraqi policeman himself. These assassinations bring into doubt the voting, that is scheduled to go on later this month. While there are suppose to be many thousands of polling stations in the Baghdad area, the heavily contested areas are scheduled to have somewhere in the range of 30 polling stations for people to cast their polls in. When asked about this, US Officials said, “We plan to have a station for everyone who wants to vote.” Who wants to vote, however, when the insugents publically threaten death to all who do, over Iraqi television (yes, this is the Iraqi television controlled by the United States)? While polling stations will be surrounded by several perimeters of Iraqi army and policemen, with the US Army on-call for any attacks that take place, many voters are too afraid to vote. They fear for their lives. In insurgent-controlled areas of Iraq, only 300 of the 13,000 policemen actually show up to work! With this fear, its a wonder that the vote is actually going to take place.
When asked, anonymously because of the fear for his life, about the voting and why he is still trying to push the votes, the head of the Baghdad Polling Stations told the US reporter, “Sacrifices must be made for independence from this fear. We must sacrifice for the next generation’s freedom.”
I’m proud to be an American.
Joseph Maitino Says: January 22nd, 2005 at 8:24 am
I say we place the UN with DUBYA (Democracies United BY America).
Sean Says: January 22nd, 2005 at 9:19 am
Well said Serb, There is bound to be threats and acts of violence. Of course people are afraid. Every country coming off a tyranny goes through this for the first democratic election. It makes sense for the oppressor’s not to want to give up their control.
However, I’d like to remind everyone that not too long ago the same thing was being said about the election in Afghanistan. Oh it will never happen, it can’t be done, there’s too much threat of violence. However, it was done with no reports of major violence.
It is small, cinical minds like Julian and Freethinker who ALWAYS SAY, “We can’t do it.” “It will never happen”, “Our operation is bogged down, and it has become a Quagmire.” “There will never be peace, or a free-democratic society in Iraq.”
Don’t listen to the Nay-sayers. THEY WILL BE PROVEN WRONG IN TIME. It is the people that believe in a loftier purpose, who are optimistic and uplifting who say, “We can do it”, “We will suceed.”, “The elections will happen.” and, “Freedom will become a reality.” That you want to listen to. People like George Washington (no country, including many people in the early 13 colonies, thought our form of government would last), Abraham Lincoln, JFK, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush.
Everyone thought we could never bring down the Soviet Union either. One man thought it was possible, Ronald Reagan and he did it. All the other dem’s thought it was impossible, that we’d never bring them down, and if we did it would be terrible and there would be a Nuclear Holocaust, because we’d be the only SuperPower in the World.
The Idea is that you shoot for the stars, you fight for a bigger, greater purpose. You go after great things to achieve something great and worthwhile. If you don’t shoot for the stars you’ll never get there. If you don’t fight for Freedom you’ll never have it or secure it.
Mr. Jack Says: May 20th, 2005 at 1:45 am
This is sad. You want to get rid of the World Government, the thing that keeps the world in check.
If the U.N is bashing bush for the war in Iraq, it’s not because they hate America, it’s because the war is unjust. The Untied states didn’t even wait for the U.N Weapons inspectors to file their report. The fact is, I think the Bush Administration was afraid, and the fear made them sloppy.
Afraid of what you ask?
Afraid that the Weapons inspectors would find no W.M.D’s, and therefore, no cause to go to war with them.
I am not sure weather the war is for oil, or for democracy, but what I do know, is that it was planed well before hand, possibly before 9/11
Look at project for a new American century and you’ll discover that these Neoconservatives are actively plotting world domination, something that scares me, because no one likes being dominated, and resistance, can lead to tragedy.
buck Says: May 20th, 2005 at 2:08 am
Mr. Jack,
Take a breath dude. I don’t want to get rid of World Governmet, I don’t want it to come into existence. Why should America submitt itself to the whims of despots who hate us, because of who we are?
And which is it, do you think or is it a fact that Bush knew there were no WMD’s.
You blathering liberals seem to skip right over the fact THAT EVERYBODY THOUGHT THERE WERE WMD’S. There were WMD’s, as evidenced by hundreds of Kurds lying in the streets dead because of mustard gas. We just don’t know what happened to them.
You are right about one thing, the war was planned prior to 9/11. In fact I think the first planning begain under the Clinton administration and was supported by Kerry, Kennedy, Albright, et.al and all the other naysayers when it was a Democrat in the White House.
Neocons are not bent on world domination. We already dominate the world. The so called Neocons are bent on being responsible as the lone superpower, and using our might to make right where there is wrong.
Yes we make mistakes, but in general, we are the best thing going. What is your pick. Estonia?
Mr. Jack Says: May 20th, 2005 at 2:19 am
actually, NOT EVERY ONE THOUGHT THERE WERE W.M.D’s because if they had, Germany, Russia, France, and many more European nations would have joined this sad, pathetic “coalition of the willing”
And I believe America should have to submit to some kind of world government, just like the rest of the world, it’s what keeps super powers in check, you must admit there has to be a balance otherwise people start getting away with some dirty things.
And “right” is a point of view. As is good and evil. everything is based on point of view, and when you say making wrong right, you’re really just enforcing your point of view, your beliefs, on other people, which I might add, is extremely oppressive
Lefty Says: May 20th, 2005 at 11:05 am
Buck,
No doubt Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds and against Iran. But he did it while Ronald Reagan was president. Soon after he used chemical weapons, Donald Rumsfeld paid him a diplomatic visit on behalf of the Reagan administration. Rumsfeld’s visit was not to criticize Saddam for using chemical weapons on the Kurds and Iranians. Instead, Rumsfeld went to Iraq to assure Saddam that he had full US support and to assist him in the war against Iran and continue to assist him in the production of these weapons. Reagan wanted a strong Saddam. He was Reagan’s kind of guy. A guy he “could work with.” So you are right about Saddam having chemical weapons 20 years ago. At the end of Gulf War 1 Saddam’s stock of chemical weapons were destroyed and the process was monitored by observers. There was never any evidence that he had any other form of WMD. If you know of any such evidence, you should inform the Bush administration immediately, as they have abandoned hope of ever finding such evidence. At this point, they can’t even come up with a good reason for having told us that they ever thought Saddam had WMDs in the first place. They just dropped the subject and moved on to other things – confident that the memory of the pre-war rhetoric had dipped below the memory horizon. Finally, what is you read of the Downing Street Memo that has been mentioned on this site pretty frequently the last several days?
MtMan Says: June 30th, 2005 at 11:03 pm
I hope that the Downing Street Memo has put to rest the debate about WMDs in Iraq. It is a smoking gun. The Neo-Cons wanted regime change, so they fudged the intel to support military action, and asked Blair to back them up. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
This is not some biased liberal rag reporting hearsay, this is one of the most respected papers in the world reporting hard evidence from a government offical. The UN wasn’t supporting a dictator because it hates freedom (or whatever some of you seem to be claiming), it was insisting on a legitimate causus belli before approving a war of aggression.
canuck Says: August 18th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
What interests me about the U.N. is why are France, and Britain on the security council.
By no stretch of the imagination could they be called important players in the whole
scheme of geopolitics. Where is real power for the 4 tigers, China, etc. The pacific rim
will dominated global economy in the 21st century, and by implication, social policy. If the
emerging nations viewed the U.N. as less of an “old boys club” perhaps they would be forced
into a real dialogue by statesmen, instead of viewing the U.N. as a place to dump hacks and
cronies who only talent and agenda is to pander to each others prejudices? Just asking.
kolran Says: August 27th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
This is a dead blog canuck, nobody has posted hear for a year.
jack Says: December 30th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Well its about time all the un dealings were investigated ,apart from the bribes they are now running the greatest con of all with the climate change racket all with models that are not even proven and calculated at between 100 and 1000 yrs .i mean if thats not crooked what is ? even though 100 scientists told them including one of their own they ignored the facts that they presented that the information and facts they were presenting were wrong and based on models that were incorrect ,and they are now trying to get tax payers money for this scam what a joke !!the climate will allways change and you can never tell where c02 comes from ,bushfires, people , animals ,volcanoes ,or polution or for that matter how much belongs to who ,next they will be trying to tell us that they can change the weather ,thats the biggest joke of all ,you just cant no matter what you do!!