Another UN crime!

You are obsessed. Get help with your crazy fixation. Nobody is going to read, or be convinced by, your copy-and-paste posts.

Haha, Baldi's okay.



The only question I have Baldi is: aren't you pissed off that the US government doesn't have people's best interest at heart?

I mean, you do realize that we are missing around 10 billion dollars from the Iraq war - we can't account for it at all. That's a lot more than a few dozen million in hard currency. Exponentially more. Where's the complaints about YOUR tax money being scammed and lost?

Cycloptichorn

This isn't about what is happening with the US in Iraq. This is about the UN not stopping the abuse of moneies they give to other countries for purposes of helping them. This is the second country that has cheated the UN and the UN has let them do it. How much longer is this going to happen?

First Iraq and Saddam and now North Korea and little Ill. These are both countries that have issues with human rights and the abilities to harm other countries. The "greatest leader" the UN has ever known let this corruption happen and did nothing but block investigations and let people under his stewardship continue the corruption. Is this acceptable for the body who is in place to keep peace and help other countries in need?

You really should, Baldimo, write your complaints to
His Excellency,
the Ambassador of the United States of America to the United Nations,
Alejandro D. Wolff,
United States Mission to the United Nations
140 East 45th Street
New York, N.Y. 10017
Phone: 212-415-4050
Fax: 212-415-4053

I'll do that but the fact remains that people such as yourself are huge supporters of the UN. They are who you support in all matters and they are not taking care of their own house.

I support them as a citizen of a UN-member country.

Ooops - the USA are even a founding member of the UN ..... and in the Security Council

This administration (the Bush one) tries to use the UN as their security blanket when they need them, and tells the world they are insignificant when they don't. A sad commentary on a loser; they can't even manipulate the organization we founded! Bush is now insignificant on the world stage.

What does this have to do with Iraq and now North Korea stealing money from the UN? Bush wasn't involved and neither was the US for that matter.

All of this corruption started in the early 90's for Iraq and late 90's for North Korea. Once again Bush wasn't in office and we let the UN handle the situation. So your mention of Bush has no relevance.

Um perhaps the reason the UN isn't doing as well as it should is the fact that there are so many people here in the US who work as hard as they can to denigrate them and even go so far as to call for its dissolution.

We have no leadership at all in the organization in which we should have the strongest possible leadership.

You get what you give; we give little, so we get little; except for fuel for more complaints by those on the Right.

Cycloptichorn

The statements of President George W. Bush and some of his senior officials in this regard have invited both amazement and anger. It was baffling to watch Bush threaten the United Nations that it will become insignificant if it doesn't support his war against Iraq - as if he had forgotten that the United Nations is an expression of international will.

So literally everything is our fault? I know this is what we are all supposed to believe, but everytime I open another thread, there it is again, and again, and again, and again, and again......and again. Frankly, it makes me sick at my stomach after a while, reading this absolute brainwashed liberal garbage. Where do I go to school to become educated to that mindset so that I can think correctly like every other little U.S. hating liberal robot?

okie wrote: "....this brain-washed liberal garbage..."

okie, Be honest; did Bush say "the UN will become insignificant if they don't approve the war with Iraq?"

If it can be proved to you that Bush made that statement, are all statements made by him "brain-washed liberal garbage?"

If the UN Vetoes the US, It Risk Irrelevance?
By MUQTEDAR KHAN

President Bush is determined to attack Iraq. It is also clear that if he cannot convince, he will bully the international community into compliance with his wishes. First Bush and now Powell have threatened that UN Security Council by stating that "it risks irrelevance" if it fails to join the US. Their argument runs as follows:

Iraq is in "material breach" of UN Security Council resolution 1441 and therefore unless the UN immediately goes to war against Iraq to impose this resolution, it will lose its international influence. If the UN vetoes US military action, it will become irrelevant because Washington is determined to attack Iraq, with or without the UN.

The irony, hypocrisy and absurdity of this position seems to escape most American commentators. The US is determined to go along with International Law if it concurs with it or else the US is determined to break international law to impose international law (1441)! If the US violates any UN resolution how is its position different from that of Iraq's. Both will be in breach of UN resolutions.

Note the date this was written:

CounterPunch

February 1, 2003

Bush and Hitler
The Stategy of Fear
by DAVE LINDORFF

It's time to stop trying to explain why a war on Iraq is a bad idea.

The logic, of course, is clear. The administration has no evidence that Hussein has weapons of destruction. If it did, it would have shown it to the American public and the U.N. long ago. It has no evidence that Iraq is in league with Al Qaeda for the same reason. And it's obvious that even if--a big if according to Genernal Norman Schwarzkopf--a U.S. invasion does succeed in easily toppling Hussein, the result of that unprovoked assault, especially if it is carried out by the U.S. without a U.N. endorsement, will be a wave of terror against Americans and American interests that will dwarf anything seen in the past.

This is all self-evident, and even the Bush Administration has tacitly admitted that increased terrorism will be the result of an attack on Iraq: it has had the State Department issue a warning to Americans overseas and to Americans planning to travel that they should be prepared to be terrorist targets.

The point, however, is that this is precisely what the Bush Administration wants to happen.

A permanent state of American panic, fortified by regular doses of terror attacks, hijackings and building demolitions by crazed Muslim fanatics is exactly what Bush needs to stay in power, win re-election in 2004, stack the federal courts, gut the Bill of Rights, and enrich its corporate sponsors.

Don't hold your breath waiting for some politician on the Democratic side of the aisle to stand up and confront the administration about this treasonous plan.

That means it is urgent for the left to address the issue--to insert it into the public debate.

If Bush truly wanted to reduce the threat of terror against Americans, he would not be harassing Arab-Americans and Muslims at random and deporting people for minor alleged visa violations after secret hearings and detentions (a teriffic way to create blood enemies!). He would not be using cowboy rhetoric and threatening to invate Iraq all on his own, knowing that one result will be the political undermining of a whole series of repressive secular Arab regimes, and their replacement by fundamentalist Islamic governments. He would not be holding back funds for legitimate homeland y defense efforts, such as bolstering fire departments and police departments. y And if he was really trying to steel America for a battle against the "forces of evil" in Iraq and the rest of the world, he'd be using Churchillian language, talking about mutual sacrifice and of fortitude under fire. Instead he calls up dire warnings of fanciful nuclear or germ attacks against urban centers, and the spectre of unimaginable horrors--things that can only induce a cowering response.

The sad thing is that Americans, fattened up and soft of muscle from their diet of McDonald's Whoppers and dim-witted from an overdose of "reality" TV shows and entertainment programs posing as news, suck up this kind of fear-mongering (all of which is eagerly played up by ratings-hungry media executives). If one plane gets highjacked, plane travel plummets. If a few letters are found to be contaminated with anthrax spores, people across the land stop opening their mail, or start zapping it first in their microwaves. If a child is reported missing in Arizona, parents across the land clutch their children to their bosoms and begin lecturing them about the evils of talking to "strangers," forgetting that this is exactly what a child ought to do if she gets lost.

In Europe, Asia, Africa or South America, where wars and terrorism, not to mention natural disasters, have been a way of life, the loss of a few hundred, or even a few thousand people, to a bomb, an earthquake, a flood or a civil war, does not induce a national catatonia. People clean up the mess as best they can, count their losses, and go on with their lives.

The other sad thing about us Americans is that we have no notion of the horrors of war, and so are quick to wish it on others (Indian Americans and the MOVE and Branch Davidian organizations aside, the last war on American soil was fought 137 years ago). It's no wonder those people of "Old Europe," as "chickenhawk" Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld disparagingly referred to Germany and France, are more reluctant about going to war in Iraq. They know that dropping bombs from B-52s all across the country and fighting door-to-door in Baghdad will produce horrific casualties and create destruction that will take years to repair (There are still several mountains on the outskirts of Darmstadt, Germany, where I spent a year as a highschool student--the stacked rubble, including many human remains, of a city of 200,000 destroyed in one night by a British fire-bombing. Similar man-made mountains can also be spotted around Berlin.) Europeans also know that if terrorism on a wider scale is the result, in the U.S. and in Europe, it will be a grisly affair.

Americans have only the WTC to look at when they try to contemplate the effects of war, and all in all, that was a pretty antiseptic affair. One second you the towers, another second, they were gone, and within a year or so, the site was all cleaned up and ready for a nifty new building. Indeed, the only institutional memory left of that attrocity is the unseemly battle by survivors of the once high-flying investment banker victims of the attack to get better reimbursements from the government for their unfortunate loss of those six-figure incomes.

The naivity of Americans about the reality of war was brought home to me years ago, when as a young journalism student, I found myself working on a story about a truck accident and ended up in a local firehouse in Middletown, CT. It was 1970, at the height of the Cold War, and the fireman on duty asked me if I'd like to see the bomb-proof back-up government offices that had been built under the station thanks to some federal disaster funding. We walked down a stairwell through three feet of case-hardened concrete, and through a blast door, into a spare-looking room filled with desks. On each desk was an etched nameplate, identifying the government bureau that would be represented by the official seated there. I saw a sign for "Mayor," another of "Police," and a third for "Fire," but there were also desks for "Welfare," "Assessor" and "Tax Collector," as though, after a nuclear holocaust there would be need for these worthy bureaucrats!

That, of course, is not how wars look--especially modern wars where military planners don't bother distinguishing between civilian and military targets. Vietnam is still recovering from its having been the target of all those bombs, napalm and Agent Orange attacks, not to mention the loss of a generation of its young men and women. Afghanistan may never recover from the relatively minor recent war there.

If we Americans value our society, our polity, our rights and liberties, and our security, we must begin exposing George W. Bush and his War Party for what they are: craven usurpers aiming at nothing less than the undermining of all those things that most of us hold dear.

It's going a bit far to compare the Bush of 2003 to the Hitler of 1933. Bush simply is not the orator that Hitler was. But comparisons of the Bush Administration's fear mongering tactics to those practiced so successfully and with such terrible results by HItler and Goebbels on the German people and their Weimar Republic are not at all out of line.

Dave Lindorff knew what he was talking about - before Bush started his preemptive war in Iraq.

If he did say that, so what? The statement is probably true. What good are countless sanctions and all the rest that went on for years with Iraq, with no teeth in the sanctions? If the U.N. would simply follow through with some things that it started, then the U.N. might be relevent. We've gone over this countless times, but yes, the U.N. is near to being rendered useless, except to be a repository for political agendas and political posturing before all to see, some of which are not healthy, and in the final analysis, they are not solving any real significant problems that I can discern. Please point some out if you know of any, but most age-old world problems and conflicts are certainly not going away or even subsiding because of the U.N. It only adds another angle for the world players to deal with, but the same old game continues to be played.

The brain-washed garbage is mainly, I wake up each day and read and hear from the liberal fringe how everything is our fault, including now the corruption in the U.N. That garbage does get old, cicerone.

Pick a college ... any college.

Cycloptichorn:



It wasn't until the issue of the Iraq war came up that many people began to really dislike the UN. Also once the scandle was discovered that Iraq was in essence stealing money from the UN for purposes other then helping his people, that more people became untrusting of the UN.

The UN did nothing to stop Iraq until the rest of the UN members found out. Once again this was whole corruption happened before Bush came into office. Clinton was in office the whole time the Money for Oil scandle was going on. What did Clinton do who loved the UN and did everything in his power to support and prop up the UN. He did nothing about the Iraq situation and he didn't know Iraq was cheating. North Korea also started cheating the system on Clintons watch according to first reports. Am I blaming Clinton for not catching it? No I'm not, hence I didn't bring Clinton up till now after all of you have bashed Bush as the fault of the UN.

I guess Bush's "axis of evil" speech had no meaning, since it "grew" during the past six years. both Iran and North Korea deveoped their nuike program during Bush's tenure - even after his "famous" speech.
Yeah, keep blaming Clinton for Bush's lack of action.