Further evidence of UN incompetence. Nothing new really, the US has known for a while. "Oil-for-palaces" was a catch phrase used on Capitol Hill for at least 5 or 6 years. But perhaps it will start the ball rolling on some internal changes that need to be made.

Don't expect anything major though - if one diplomat loses his post, and thus loses the opportunity to have nice, expensive dinners in New York - then they'll all get scared and stop making reforms.

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

yup...tisk...shame






thanx.

aside from IMPEACH ANNAN

I'll say something solid:

This will make the use of the UN in actual roles the USA wished to delegate responsibility more and more of a challenge.

Although the UN will undoubtedly retain its "neutral" good standing face with the rest of the world when this fiasco is over, it will be hard for pragmatist to actually justify giving valuable operations to the control of the UN.

It basically tells us the UN can't be counted on for pragmatic solutions, not only the political solutions we've known they have been incapable of for years.

The UN, has basically suffered a great blow to its "operations" arena, something the UN was valued for even by neo-hawks. Now that the UN has demonstrated it is worthless in both operations and political arena, justifying allocations to it... even if the world demands it will be harder and harder for the US to comply with. And this will of course look the US look like the bad guy.

... This issue also should bring question to all other operations of the UN, I'm sure investigations would turn up many of their humanitarian initiatives are no less corrupt than the oil for food program was.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

That's why I've always been in favor of moving the UN to Paris, France where it belongs and washing our hands of the ineffectual organization.


[[[smoke]]]

Sorry but one of the main reasons the UN does not work (sometimes) is due to America not giving two shits about any UN rulings (as we see over Iraq and Israel). What on EARTH makes you think that any other country will ever follow any UN resolution when they see America (and Israel) ignoring the ones they dont agree with? And why should they?!

And what would you suggest we replace the UN with? Anything?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Sorry but one of the main reasons the UN does not work (sometimes) is due to America not giving two shits about any UN rulings (as we see over Iraq and Israel). What on EARTH makes you think that any other country will ever follow any UN resolution when they see America (and Israel) ignoring the ones they dont agree with? And why should they?! And what would you suggest we replace the UN with? Anything?

But thats not what we are complaininga bout on the UN this time. The complaint here, is not with the UN as a political entity. But as a operational entity.

Everyone knows that the UN is ineffective politically - we can dwell into why this is, but everyone agrees to this point.

What is 'new' is that UN operations are ineffective as well. Thats the point of argument here. And I belief that has nothing to do with Israel and the USA.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

An interesting editorial tidbit from Barron's this weekend.

Link

quote:

Suspect U.N. Motives Was it always about the oil, after all? ONE YEAR AGO, as the United States went to war in Iraq without permission of the United Nations, we often heard that America's true motivation had nothing to do with freeing Iraqis from their murderous dictator, or with reducing the threat that Saddam Hussein would obtain, use or distribute nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, or with bringing the Iraqis the benefits of democracy. "No war for oil," was the slogan on banners as millions demonstrated against the conflict, against giant international companies, against capitalism and against the country that is capitalism's home base. The slogan rankled because it was so stupid: If America wants oil, it can buy it at a price determined by supply and demand. Using military power just raises the price. Now it appears that oil was hidden at the center of the debate about going to war. Some of those who said "no war" or who insisted that only the United Nations could make the war legitimate were trying to retain their privileged access to Iraqi oil. They achieved that access through the misconceived, misnamed and mismanaged "Oil for Food" program operated under United Nations cover. Cynics posing as sentimentalists had helped Saddam Hussein get around economic sanctions by letting Iraq sell oil to raise money for food and medicine for its citizens. It was, of course, just another way of abusing those citizens. At least $47 billion worth of oil was sold under the program, and the U.S. General Accounting Office estimated last week that at least $10 billion flowed back to Saddam Hussein, his cronies and his partners. Kickbacks and illicit profits flowed in many directions, apparently including French and Russian business figures, international politicians and even the U.N. director of the Oil for Food program. Iraqi documents may indicate who got what; then the world will have to decide whether the U.N. can retain any legitimacy on any topic.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Sorry but one of the main reasons the UN does not work (sometimes) is due to America not giving two shits about any UN rulings (as we see over Iraq and Israel). What on EARTH makes you think that any other country will ever follow any UN resolution when they see America (and Israel) ignoring the ones they dont agree with? And why should they?!

I assume you're referring to the eleven security council resolutions over a twelve year stint that the U.S. ignored? Or was that Iraq? Did the U.S. ignore the U.N. involvement with Kosovo? Did the U.N. do anything about the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania? come to think of it has the U.N. given two shits or even a hershey squirt about terrorism, Al-Qeda or otherwise, anywhere on this planet? How about nuclear proliferation in less than reputable countries? There still in Kosovo for frikkin sake gettin their asses handed to them. A U.N. ruling is not worth the paper it's printed on and it was that way long before the U.S. invaded Iraq. Hell, they even voted unanimously for us to use force, without their help of course.

We're supposed to be the civilised ones. We're the ones supposed to be setting an example. Without that, there is no legitimacy, and, as you say, UN rulings are not worth the paper they are written on. What happens when governments/states act in any which way they please with no legitimacy? The people revolt and attack. Exacty the same in the international community. When the rulers (America and the West) act any which way the please with no legitimacy, the little countries (the ones we fuck over) will revolt and attack...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley We're supposed to be the civilised ones. We're the ones supposed to be setting an example. Without that, there is no legitimacy, and, as you say, UN rulings are not worth the paper they are written on. What happens when governments/states act in any which way they please with no legitimacy? The people revolt and attack. Exacty the same in the international community. When the rulers (America and the West) act any which way the please with no legitimacy, the little countries (the ones we fuck over) will revolt and attack...

hmm odd, history tells us the opposite

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

Does it?