|
Post by Hussar on Dec 3, 2004 5:06:10 GMT -5
If you've been paying attention to the news, you've likely heard that there are allegations that Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the UN was connected in some way to the Oil-For-Food scandal with Iraq. That there was money being stolen from the system seems to be a pretty much given fact. It looks like the Sec-Gen didn't have a direct hand in things, but, since it happened on his watch, it certainly makes him look incompetent. The US is in the process of gathering information and making information public. Yet, today, Annan was almost universally endorsed by Security council and non-Sec Council members, including England. You'd think that when the big player at the table makes these sorts of accusations, countries, particularly close allies, might back them up, or at least call for some closer scrutiny. Why not? Could it be that other nations have lost a great deal of faith in America? That the complete and utter failure of the American intelligence service with regards to both 9/11 and Iraq has somewhat jaded other countries? I remember back before the war, saying that Iraq would hurt America far more than it would help. Even if the allegations are true, the perception is going to be that America is trying to shift attention from its own failures onto the UN in retaliation for the lack of UN support in Iraq. There's no other way to view this unfortunately. Anything America says in the matter is going to be viewed through the double lens of outright lies told to the UN a couple of years ago leading up the war and the obvious anti-UN sentiment in America. This is very sad to me. That America has lost so much credibility that even the truth cannot be viewed as anything other than a face-saving measure by the US. It's not like this is a big surprise. Everyone who opposed the war said exactly the same thing. That the war would be so damaging to American credibility, that other countries will be unwilling to take ANYTHING the US claims without a huge dose of salt. If people think this is going to go away, they're dreaming. This is just the tip of the iceberg. When you stand up and lie to the world, don't be surprised when the world no longer believes anything you say.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Dec 3, 2004 10:23:23 GMT -5
Actually no, the U.S. is not trying to save face.
U.N. out of U.S. A conservative group has started a petition aimed at giving the United Nations the boot--out of the United States. Evidence of corruption at the U.N. and its faliure to support the U.S. war on terriorism prompted the launch of a petition drive. Because the United Nations is an organization that is impeding freedom for the long-suffering people of Iraq and blocking eradication of the world's terrorist threats.
The recent revelation about the U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal are the final straws in making the case against the U.N. The U.S. government is resolved to take action against nations that harbor terrorist or organizations which provide financial aid or in-kind assistance to terrorists. Why then does America play host to, and harbor, the United Nations when recent evidence implicates the U.N.'s role in providing assistance to terrorist such as Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein?
The petition, which is directed to U.S. and U.N. leaders, criticizes the UN for becoming "a safe harbor, aplologist and defender of terrorist organizztions and their agents". We tell other countries not to harbor organizations that support terrorist; why then do we harbor the U.N. here in America?
This is a response to any grassroots efforts like there's been to this effort to take serious steps to sanction the U.N. for it's coddling of terrorist and terrorist-supporting regimes.
We need drastic change right away, and that begings with getting the U.N. out of the U.S. and all the terrorist sympathizing U.N. agents out of here immediately. Then we need to re-examine the amount of money that we provide the U.N. American pay too much to the U.N. for the treatment we recieve.
If Canada or England want the U.N. in their country I see no problem in that. I say again the Oil-for-Food scandal is the Last straw, some would say. I disagree the U.N. should have been kicked out 20 years ago.
Could it be that France, Germany and a few other countries have been exposed to in league with the useless, ignored, and now exposed corupt U.N. If you support terrorism either directly or indirectly, (France and Germany), do you really think it matter to America what they think of America.
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Dec 3, 2004 10:47:44 GMT -5
Well if it isn't trying to save face it should be.
If the USA wasn't a superpower someone would have invaded by now over this. As it is its only your economic might thats keeping alot of grief from your door.
BTW Galadon coming from a country who supported the IRA it rich complaining about other countries supporting terrorists.
Challenger
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Dec 3, 2004 12:27:55 GMT -5
Don't you think that was maybe a few politians backing the IRA for some stupid reason. Don't blame the entire country for a bizzar idea of a few.
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Dec 3, 2004 13:07:52 GMT -5
Galadon doesn't it bother you at all that what you just said applied to Iraq.
You blamed a country and bombed a fair portion of it flat because of a few crackpots.
Challenger
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Dec 3, 2004 17:45:15 GMT -5
I do believe the IRA is a bit different from one guy.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Dec 4, 2004 0:52:53 GMT -5
Heh, it's funny how not supporting an illegal invasion has been equated with not supporting the war on terror. I must have imagined those thousands of UN troops in Afghanistan. Some thousand Canadian troops, some 5000 French, I dunno about the Germans or the English, but still lots. Full endorsement of US policy in Afghanistan. Continued full cooperation with anti-terror initiatives.
But, when the UN didn't support an invasion of a country THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISM, somehow the UN is opposing the war on Terror.
I believe this is what I am referring to when it comes to a loss of credibility.
Hmm, never mind supporting the IRA, how about:
Agustus Pinochet - put in power through a CIA coup The Sandinistas Osama Bin Laden when he was fighting the Russians
I'm sure the list is longer, but that's what I could come up with out of my head. Before you go crying about nations supporting terrorists, perhaps you should clean up your own back yard.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Dec 5, 2004 17:36:35 GMT -5
Allow me to repeat. We should have got rid of the UN 20 years ago. The only use it has now is to allow some 3rd world nations a place to complain. The UN is useless. They are like the relative at dinner no one wants, but puts up with them just to be polite.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Dec 5, 2004 23:09:11 GMT -5
Yup, the UN is useless. Only brought fair elections to Serbia, Cambodia, and a fair number of other nations. Provides a forum for discussing issues so that we don't have to resort to needless wars to settle differences. Creates a place where international law can be created and observed. All of which has benefitted the US as much as any other nation. People who think the UN is useless have really failed to study any current issues.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Dec 6, 2004 13:00:15 GMT -5
Really, what UN history are you reading. From what galaxy. Certaintly not the UN here. I'm sure the coruption that the UN was involved in and is being investigated was just made up.
Like I said before, if another country wants to have the UN there that's fine with us. The UN can live off the welfare of another country. We are tired of supporting these petty 3rd world dictators.
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Dec 6, 2004 13:15:39 GMT -5
Galadon you need to read up on the UN History
Challenger
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Dec 6, 2004 19:19:10 GMT -5
Really, tell me all the successful military encounters the UN has had,,,without the US military.
It will be a short list
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Dec 6, 2004 20:36:12 GMT -5
Now as we look back. What make you think I don't know of the UN's history.
Ah, but now if I were to say such a thing, people get all puffy.
If the UN is so great then they don't ever need the US military again. and we can move it to Canada. Both is fine with me.
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Dec 7, 2004 6:47:16 GMT -5
Because you seem to be ignoring the fact it was USA's idea? You talk like your complettly ignorent of why it was set up, why its predecessor failed and why its vitaly important the world powers don't simply fall back on the old system of alliances.
Your right however it will be a short list. But then the USA has usualy (Though hardly always) supported it
Because the whole bloody point is for it to be a place where nations talk to each other. The USA set the damn thing up and it needs the USA to work. Every other country in the UN has had decisions against it and rather than simply pull out have accepted it and got on with it.
But not the USA. "Who is the UN to tell us we're wrong. We're always right, we're America. How dare they stand up to us."
Your right the UN has become useless. But then it lacks the power to force the most powerful member to do anything and that undermines its authority unless the most powerful member plays ball. Shame the USA hasn't been for the past few decades.
Challenger
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Dec 7, 2004 12:52:24 GMT -5
Which goes to the point the UN is useless now, not in the past, which it was.
|
|