Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
UN condemns US
Topic Started: May 22 2005, 10:42 AM (764 Views)
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Dr. Noah
May 23 2005, 09:48 AM
Except for this part:

It also states that the State Department and the US military agreed to the shipment of nearly eight million barrels of oil bought by Jordan outside the Oil For Food programme.

What new report? Galloway's "testimony?"

C'mon, straw grasper.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Dr. Noah
May 23 2005, 09:50 AM
Then of course there's this:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

Audit: U.S. lost track of $9 billion in Iraq funds
Pentagon, Bremer dispute inspector general's report
Monday, January 31, 2005 Posted: 0412 GMT (1212 HKT)



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to a watchdog report published Sunday.

An inspector general's report said the U.S.-led administration that ran Iraq until June 2004 is unable to account for the funds.

"Severe inefficiencies and poor management" by the Coalition Provisional Authority has left auditors with no guarantee the money was properly used," the report said.

"The CPA did not establish or implement sufficient managerial, financial and contractual controls to ensure that [Development Fund for Iraq] funds were used in a transparent manner," said Stuart W. Bowen Jr., director of the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.

The $8.8 billion was reported to have been spent on salaries, operating and capital expenditures, and reconstruction projects between October 2003 and June 2004, Bowen's report concluded.

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. (Full story)

Auditors were unable to verify that the Iraqi money was spent for its intended purpose. In one case, they raised the possibility that thousands of "ghost employees" were on an unnamed ministry's payroll.

"CPA staff identified at one ministry that although 8,206 guards were on the payroll, only 602 guards could be validated," the audit report states. "Consequently, there was no assurance funds were not provided for ghost employees."

The Defense Department, which was in charge of the reconstruction effort, and former Iraq civil administrator Paul Bremer have disputed the findings.

*********************************************************

Great job Bremer! Let's give him a medal!

Quote:
 
Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to a watchdog report published Sunday.


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
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
psyfi
May 23 2005, 10:03 AM
Dr. Noah
May 23 2005, 09:52 AM
It's important to me because in an incresingly interdependent world we must learn to work together rather than impose our will. 

The name is from an episode of DS9, don't you watch Star Trek?

I never stated by opinion is more valid than anyone elses.  Where did you get that idea?

It is important, and I think it always has been, that people learn to work together. I don't think anybody would deny that. But the UN's way of "working together" is despicable. It isn't about teaching that lesson. It's a bunch of mostly corrupt people out for themselves and theirs. Why should we allow them to impose their will when they haven't learned the lesson that we all agree must be taught?

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
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
Unregistered

somerled
May 23 2005, 11:18 AM
psyfi
May 23 2005, 10:03 AM
Dr. Noah
May 23 2005, 09:52 AM
It's important to me because in an incresingly interdependent world we must learn to work together rather than impose our will. 

The name is from an episode of DS9, don't you watch Star Trek?

I never stated by opinion is more valid than anyone elses.  Where did you get that idea?

It is important, and I think it always has been, that people learn to work together. I don't think anybody would deny that. But the UN's way of "working together" is despicable. It isn't about teaching that lesson. It's a bunch of mostly corrupt people out for themselves and theirs. Why should we allow them to impose their will when they haven't learned the lesson that we all agree must be taught?

Isn't that exactly what the USA is all about the UN , ie their own national interest at the cost of all others.

According to John Bolton (and apparently the Bush administration) it is.
| Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Admiralbill_gomec
May 23 2005, 11:11 AM
Dr. Noah
May 23 2005, 09:50 AM
Then of course there's this:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

Audit: U.S. lost track of $9 billion in Iraq funds
Pentagon, Bremer dispute inspector general's report
Monday, January 31, 2005 Posted: 0412 GMT (1212 HKT)

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to a watchdog report published Sunday.

An inspector general's report said the U.S.-led administration that ran Iraq until June 2004 is unable to account for the funds.

"Severe inefficiencies and poor management" by the Coalition Provisional Authority has left auditors with no guarantee the money was properly used," the report said.

"The CPA did not establish or implement sufficient managerial, financial and contractual controls to ensure that [Development Fund for Iraq] funds were used in a transparent manner," said Stuart W. Bowen Jr., director of the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.

The $8.8 billion was reported to have been spent on salaries, operating and capital expenditures, and reconstruction projects between October 2003 and June 2004, Bowen's report concluded.

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. (Full story)

Auditors were unable to verify that the Iraqi money was spent for its intended purpose. In one case, they raised the possibility that thousands of "ghost employees" were on an unnamed ministry's payroll.

"CPA staff identified at one ministry that although 8,206 guards were on the payroll, only 602 guards could be validated," the audit report states. "Consequently, there was no assurance funds were not provided for ghost employees."

The Defense Department, which was in charge of the reconstruction effort, and former Iraq civil administrator Paul Bremer have disputed the findings.

*********************************************************

Great job Bremer! Let's give him a medal!

Quote:
 
Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to a watchdog report published Sunday.


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.

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
Quote:
 
Where is the UN on all the murders by Radical Islam? Where are they on the genocide in Africa
which are ligitimate questions , then I suggest another topic should be started to avoid distracting everyone here.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
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 .... :shrug:

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
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
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Dr. Noah
May 23 2005, 04:50 PM
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.

"Noting" your statement doesn't make it accurate. :rotfl:

And please don't post the same article on Indonesia AGAIN ... :please:

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. :shrug:

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
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Dr. Noah
May 23 2005, 04:50 PM
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:

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
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
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Dr. Noah
May 23 2005, 05:08 PM
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. 

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. ;)

Dr. Noah
 
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.


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.

Dr. Noah
 
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?


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
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
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Dr. Noah
May 23 2005, 05:27 PM
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.

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: :no:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Dr. Noah
May 23 2005, 11:27 AM
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.

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 | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus