I was wrong, they didn't get to keep the money:
[URL=It's not about stealing oil.]Slovenia is not SLovakia[/URL]
US mistakenly adds peaceniks to war list
March 28 2003 at 09:38AM
Ljubljana - The United States has mistakenly named Slovenia as a partner in its war against Iraq - and even offered it a share of the money budgeted for the conflict.
One day after hundreds of Slovenians hit the streets to protest the inclusion of their nation in the US war budget, Prime Minister Anton Rop said Washington had goofed.
"When we asked for an explanation, the State Department told us we were named in the document by mistake as we are not a member of the coalition against Iraq," Rop told a hastily arranged news conference.
Slovenia was one of the states named in the $75-billion US war budget, which must be approved by Congress and includes grants to partners in the US-led military action. Slovenia was slated to get $4,5-million from the budget, which Rop said will not be forthcoming.
"We are a part of no such coalition. We are a part of a coalition for peace," Rop said.
At the "Interim Coalition Stability Operations Conference", in May, both Slovenia and Slovakia took part.
Walter:
Did Russia, Germany, and France profit from the 12 years of sanctions against Iraq?
perception,
The US made a profit on Gulf War 1 by some calculations. Yet that is not indicative of nefarious US motives.
Tit for tat, that makes it okay for the Bush family to heavily profit from it's war!
Craven wrote:
perception,
The US made a profit on Gulf War 1 by some calculations. Yet that is not indicative of nefarious US motives.
HuH?----Shouldn't you be addressing this to Walter?
Confused
No perception. I am addressing it to you. The US made a profit from Gulf War I. Does that serve as an indictment of the US?
Craven Wrote:
No perception. I am addressing it to you. The US made a profit from Gulf War I. Does that serve as an indictment of the US?
No--most certainly not----still puzzled
I agree with the "certainly not" part. Why do you seek to indict the UN over lesser matters then?
perception
In 2000, Iraqi Trade Minister Mohammed Mahdi Saleh was using the same accusations against the UN as you did - althought he blamed "a US-British intention to take advantage of the Iraqi situation." (source: Agence France Presse June 8, 2000)
Craven
Because they are supposed to be an organization to benefit the poor people of the world through sound and transparent management. Without transparency there can be no accountability and without accoutability there will very little credibility.
They won't open their books---why not?
perception wrote:Craven
Because they are supposed to be an organization to benefit the poor people of the world through sound and transparent management. Without transparency there can be no accountability and without accoutability there will very little credibility.
They won't open their books---why not?
Are you speaking about the UN? The United Nations, an organisation to benefit poor people?
DID YOU EVER HAVE HAD LOOK AT THE UN-CHARTA?
I don't know why they don't open their books or even whether that is an issue.
Sound and transparent management is a lofty ideal that I have yet to see realized on that scale, by the US, UN or anyone else.
Credibility is obviously in the eye of the beholder here. Political inclination is directly proportionate to the perceived credibility and relevance of the UN these days.
Walter wrote:
In 2000, Iraqi Trade Minister Mohammed Mahdi Saleh was using the same accusations against the UN as you did - althought he blamed "a US-British:
Walter excuse me if I scoff at what any member of Saddams regime had to say-----was Baghdad Bob reliable?
perception,
Walter's point was not that Iraq was reliable but that the accusation you level at the UN might be a situation in which mismanagement is capitalized upon for political purposes. In Iraq's case to malign the US and in yours to undermine the UN.
one's perception is almost always based on one's agenda.
Oh I don't mind being accused of undermining the UN---I see them as a bunch of pigs at the trough and the UN charter in my humble opinion is a colossal disaster full of idealistic mumbo jumbo with not one ounce of muscle to accomplish anything.
You sound as though I have an obligation to be loyal to the UN----I think not.
perception wrote:Oh I don't mind being accused of undermining the UN---I see them as a bunch of pigs at the trough and the UN charter in my humble opinion is a colossal disaster full of idealistic mumbo jumbo with not one ounce of muscle to accomplish anything.
You sound as though I have an obligation to be loyal to the UN----I think not.
Perhaps the answer lies not in muscle, but in heart. I fail to understand the far-right's creed that the only proper answer to anything is to kill it, destroy it, or enslave it.
perception wrote:Oh I don't mind being accused of undermining the UN---I see them as a at the trough and the UN charter in my humble opinion is a colossal disaster full of idealistic mumbo jumbo with not one ounce of muscle to accomplish anything.
Quote:
THE death of Sergio Vieira de Mello, distinguished Brazilian diplomat and special representative of the UN Secretary General in Baghdad, in a bomb attack in the Iraqi capital and more than 20 UN aids has shocked the world.
"bunch of pigs" doesn't sound quite nice just a few days after these murders.
