| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| UN condemns US | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 22 2005, 10:42 AM (764 Views) | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | May 23 2005, 11:09 AM Post #31 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
What new report? Galloway's "testimony?" C'mon, straw grasper. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | May 23 2005, 11:11 AM Post #32 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Nothing to do with Oil-for-food. At least try and stay on topic. You're all over the place trying to place some kind of blame on a man you hate. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | May 23 2005, 11:18 AM Post #33 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Isn't that exactly what the USA is all about the UN , ie their own national interest at the cost of all others. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | May 23 2005, 11:20 AM Post #34 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
Maybe you missed this line AB: The money came from revenues from the United Nations' former oil-for-food program, oil sales and seized assets -- all Iraqi money. The audit did not examine the use of U.S. funds appropriated for reconstruction. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | May 23 2005, 11:21 AM Post #35 |
|
Unregistered
|
According to John Bolton (and apparently the Bush administration) it is. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| somerled | May 23 2005, 11:37 AM Post #36 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Ian't that exactly what you are trying to do with anyone who opposes the USA's foreign policy agenda (Germany, France, UN, Russia, China, and any eminent person who dares to criticise the USA , especially on Iraq). Got news for you - there is more to this world than the USA , and the USA's national interests are generally detrimental to most everyone else's national interests. I agree , if your soldiers abuse their prisoners , or allow them to be abused by others (in their name) , then you should expect to called on , as you have certainly lost the high moral and ethical ground . Instead of complaining about it and accusing people who have called the USA on these matters anti-American if foreigners or un-American (or traitors) if americans , your government and military should be doing more than just playing lip service to making ammends and prosecuting everyone involved as far up the chain of command as it goes. If you want to start a discussion about the UN and its response in regards to other matters such those raized by Who ie which are ligitimate questions , then I suggest another topic should be started to avoid distracting everyone here. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | May 23 2005, 11:48 AM Post #37 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
*What is this thread about?* :rolleyes: Oh, yeah. The UN condeming the US for the abuses in Afghanistan. I agree with 24. ANYTIME we screw up, we should be held to account for it. The report on the abuses in Afghanistan demonstrates that is what happened (and, I believe, should continue to happen). But, as someone succinctly put it. "Pot - Kettle - Black". The UN failed in Rwanda - they knew geonicide was imminent and not only failed to prepare for it, but actually interfered with those who attempted to stop it. The UN VOWED "Never Again". Now we have the Sudan - where rape and castration is what happens to the "lucky" people. The rest are hacked to death or even burned alive. Where's the UN? The UN has admitted that it's personnel - not just the peacekeepers but its own paid staff - have food for sexual favors in four - or is it five - different countries. To date NOONE has been even charged. If the UN cannot police themselves .... Then we have the "Oil-for-Food" scandal where major UN figures personally profited from the program (and their sons) and the UN is threatening vendors with legal action if they talk to investigators. Forget the number of people in various administrations around the world who profited - who's cleaning up the UN itself? Pot - Kettle - Black is the perfect response to the UN's comments. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | May 23 2005, 11:50 AM Post #38 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
But it should also be noted that the US also has people involved in the oil for food scandal, as well as turning it's back when genocide happened in Rwanda and Sudan as well as Indonesia. Ironic that people are up in arms about corruption in the UN, but the administration is found to be fixing intelligence and facts to fit policy, people think they were just collating information. :rolleyes: |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | May 23 2005, 12:01 PM Post #39 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
"Noting" your statement doesn't make it accurate. And please don't post the same article on Indonesia AGAIN ... The US is NOT the UN. It is a sovereign nation. It has the right to look out for itself FIRST ... as does every nation. The UN's plan "supposedly" is to have nations that neighbor hot spots to help police those hot spots. Australia and New Zealand stepping into Indonesia is the way that plan is "supposed" to work. Damming the US for not being involved there and then damming them for being invovled in Iraq is hypocritical at best. I agree with you on Rwanda. Rather than involving US troops in a European civil war in a nation that never threatened the US or would ever have threatened the US, I thought Clinton should have sent those troops in humanitarian support to Rwanda instead. Why he didn't, I will never know. As to the Sudan, the US is the one who's been trying for months to get the UN to act, but the UN has criticized the US for daring to call what's happening in the Sudan "geonocide". What's the US choice when the UN refuses to act? According to you, acting without the support of the UN is against a nation that never attacked the US and realistically never would is a violation of international law. If the US is expected to do what the UN is supposed to do, then stop criticizing them when they do. If they shouldn't act like the UN is supposed to do, then stop criticizing them when they don't. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | May 23 2005, 12:04 PM Post #40 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
I see that you added on to your post after I started a reply to your first paragraph. Ironic isn't it that when peacekeepers tell a child that they must have sex with a grown man if they want a loaf of bread or a piece of fruit (paid for by the UN, BTW), people dismiss it as unimportant because one American businessman was involved in the "Oil-For-Food" scandal. :rolleyes: |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | May 23 2005, 12:08 PM Post #41 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
It's funny too how the oil for food scandal is such a big deal when it amounts to less than 2 billion dollars, and the US can't account for 9 billion of the reconstruction nobody seems to mind. BTW: It is a violation of international law to attack another sovreign nation unless a. attacked first, b. under threat of immenent attack and/or c. granted permission by the UN security council. The only body with the legitimacy to decide if one sovreign nation can be invaded is a body of nations. Would you rather any individual nation be able to make that decision? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | May 23 2005, 12:25 PM Post #42 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Since there isn't a final tally on the cost of the "oil for food" scandal as yet - largely due to the overt obstruction of the UN in the investigation - it's far to early to compare any numbers. As to the 9 billion - you are forgetting part of the story.
If true, then there is NO POSSIBLE WAY for the US to act in the Sudan. You criticizing them for not doing something in the Sudan that you are criticizing them for doing in Iraq. Also, if true, Clinton violated international law by sending US troops into the Balkans.
Legitamacy - like authority - is earned, not "given". As long as the international body thinks the sexual exploitation is acceptable and people continue to support them regardless, then the body has no legitamacy. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | May 23 2005, 12:27 PM Post #43 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
I doubt that the organization at large thinks that sexual exploitation is okay, you're mistaking a few bad apples for the whole, similarly how people may characterize military troops based on the actions of those involved in Abu Gharib who also engaged in sexual abuse of Iraqis. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | May 23 2005, 12:37 PM Post #44 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Thank you for pointing out an obvious difference. The American military personnel at Abu Gharib prison responsible are in jail or awaiting sentencing. The UN personnel responsible for the sexual explotation of children are still in their jobs or have been reassigned to the same jobs in other refugee camps. The UN has issued a strong worded "no fraternization" policy in hopes it won't happen again. As to your attempt to make the gang rape of children and what was seen in the pictures from Abu Gharib equivalent - :rolleyes:
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | May 23 2005, 12:37 PM Post #45 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
What happened to the troops who committed humiliations on Iraqi prisoners? They went to JAIL or are in the process of going to jail. What happened to UN "peacekeepers" who forced 12-year-old girls into prostitution and rape? NOTHING. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



2:07 PM Jul 11