The UN SUCKS!!! Are we the only good country? - Darfur

[wacki]

The Darfur incident makes me sick. 10,000 people are dieing a month and the UN is impotent because of OIL!!!!! Again, UN is impotent, because of OIL!!!!!!!! First France and Russia, now China and Pakistan.

Genocide is occuring and the US is the only one going to help. What the hell?!?!!? Where is Britain? Where is Germany?!?!? Russia??!??!? Why aren't other countries pushing hard? 10,000 people a month, and no one cares because of OIL!!!! WTF!

[GWB]

Until the UN becomes a positive force for freedom and justice in the world, the US and our correct-thinking allies will have to do the job by ourselves.

No "Global Test" here as long as I am President.

[Bigdaddydvo]

Let's see. Among the trademark classic moves of the U.N.:

1) Appointing rogue nations like Lybia and Iran to head their Human Rights committees

2) Get rich of the completely corrupt "Oil for Food" program (no wonder Kofi Annan recently called the Iraq war "illegal."

3) Twiddle their thumbs during the worst cases of Genocide in the past 2 decades: Bosnia-Kosovo, Rwanda, and Sudan.

4) Cost NYC millions in unpaid parking tickets.

As long as America is held on the same moral plane as rogue nations in the U.N. world, we will never be able to acocmplish anything meaningful in that body.

[sam h]

The UN may suck in its own ways, although it has often looked a lot better than the US in responding to these crises - such as in East Timor a while back - than most critics would like to admit.

I hope you are joking when you ask, "Are we the only good country?"

[PITTM]

mmmmmmmmmm....out of context....

rj

[tanda]

The UN is a joke. Always has been. Everybody agrees on that point.

After all, it is why the Security Council and not the General Assembly has the real power. U.S., China, Russia, G.B. and France all agree that the General Assembly can never be given any power over the military power of the UN. Hence, a 15 member council with 5 permanent members with veto power that leaves the rest of the UN in the cold.

I was opposed to the Iraq war but for reasons other than those of most. Most others wanted 1) a stronger UN resolution and/or 2) more time for the UN to handle the situation and/or 3) more cooperation from France, Russia, Germany and China.

The Benz for Oil Program shows the stupidity of those reasons for opposing the war.

I was against the war but do think that if it the war was necessary that the US had to lead unilaterally and waiting on the UN and France was a fantasy. And Kerry and Edwards are the one in denial as to that option.

The objective analysis is that the various reports this week on no WMDs (which is not really new since we have all known it for over a year) and the Benz for Oil program leaves both campaigns completely discredited.

Bush "He has WMDs"

Kerry "The UN process is working, we need France and Germany on board, give sanctions more time"

They are both a joke on this issue. One man in denial that Saddam had WMDs and one man in denial that he is not a pacifist.

Bush tied his argument to WMDs and Kerry tied his argument to the UN and Old Europe. Both are fools.

[Felix_Nietsche]

I'd wish the USA would quit the UN..... I have ZERO respect for that corrupt bag of ****.

[meow_meow]

you refer, of course, to the USA

[meow_meow]

[ QUOTE ]
The UN is a joke. Always has been. Everybody agrees on that point.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is quite an assertion

[ QUOTE ]

I was opposed to the Iraq war but for reasons other than those of most. Most others wanted 1) a stronger UN resolution and/or 2) more time for the UN to handle the situation and/or 3) more cooperation from France, Russia, Germany and China.

The Benz for Oil Program shows the stupidity of those reasons for opposing the war.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you've proven your point nicely there....?!?

[ QUOTE ]

I was against the war but do think that if it the war was necessary that the US had to lead unilaterally and waiting on the UN and France was a fantasy. And Kerry and Edwards are the one in denial as to that option.


[/ QUOTE ]
Why, exactly, were you against the war?

[ QUOTE ]

The objective analysis is that the various reports this week on no WMDs (which is not really new since we have all known it for over a year) and the Benz for Oil program leaves both campaigns completely discredited.

Bush "He has WMDs"

Kerry "The UN process is working, we need France and Germany on board, give sanctions more time"

They are both a joke on this issue. One man in denial that Saddam had WMDs and one man in denial that he is not a pacifist.

Bush tied his argument to WMDs and Kerry tied his argument to the UN and Old Europe. Both are fools.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is it that you think the sanctions were designed to do, that they were not in fact doing?
I've always thought that the sanctions were meant to prevent Saddam from re-arming. I think that by any measure, they were fabulously effective in that regard. They did have the nasty side effect of hurting the Iraqi people, which the oil for FOOD program was designed (unsuccessfully) to mitigate...

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
What is it that you think the sanctions were designed to do, that they were not in fact doing?
I've always thought that the sanctions were meant to prevent Saddam from re-arming. I think that by any measure, they were fabulously effective in that regard. They did have the nasty side effect of hurting the Iraqi people, which the oil for FOOD program was designed (unsuccessfully) to mitigate...

[/ QUOTE ]

Your obviously new to this forum. I'll repeat something you said to me.

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to say this, but perhaps if you removed your head from your ass, you would discover a neat little tool by the name of google...

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Everything you said in the first quote is 100% wrong, and I've explained it a million times. But to save you some work.
================================================== ========================================
I have an idea, lets ask Maxim.

http://www.maximonline.com/the_ride/articles/article_5274.html

BTW, did we have troops on the border of Iraq while France was still selling Iraq weapons? Or was that a week before we showed up on the border, I can't tell. Shows you how much they care about us.

French Connection
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040908-123000-1796r.htm


Jim Ewald's A-10 Thunderbolt fighter over Baghdad and the discovery that it was a French-made Roland missile that brought down the American pilot and destroyed a $13 million aircraft. .... A week after Ewald's A-10 was downed, an Army team searching Iraqi weapons depots at the Baghdad airport discovered caches of French-made missiles. One anti-aircraft missile, among a cache of 51 Roland-2s from a French-German manufacturing partnership, bore a label indicating that the batch was produced just months earlier.

In May, Army intelligence found a stack of blank French passports in an Iraqi ministry, confirming what U.S. intelligence already had determined: The French had helped Iraqi war criminals escape from coalition forces — and therefore justice.

Then, there were French-made trucks and radios and the deadly grenade launchers, known as RPGs, with French-made night sights. Saddam loyalists used them to kill American soldiers long after the toppling of the dictator's regime.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you are joking when you ask, "Are we the only good country?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so sure. Obviously, I know there are other good coutnies. Britain being on. I don't understand how you can just sit back and watch systematic genocide. Why is the US on a lone mission with this.

[tanda]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The UN is a joke. Always has been. Everybody agrees on that point.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That is quite an assertion

I meant that the UN (General Assembly) and most of its member nations really has no power since no responsible nation wants to give it any. Hence, the Security Council which takes all the serious action. For example, the Secretary General has no authority to take action even when a resolution has been passed.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I was opposed to the Iraq war but for reasons other than those of most. Most others wanted 1) a stronger UN resolution and/or 2) more time for the UN to handle the situation and/or 3) more cooperation from France, Russia, Germany and China.

The Benz for Oil Program shows the stupidity of those reasons for opposing the war.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes, you've proven your point nicely there....?!?

Surely you are not suggesting that continuing to work with an organization which has made no effort to enforce 15 plus violated resolutions, has member nations on Saddam's payroll and whose Secretary General was the corrupt administrator of the Benz for Oil program is still an acceptable argument? We know that Saddam was gaming the system. Bribing countries to get the sanctions lifted instead of complying with the resolutions as he agreed to do at the end of Gulf War I. His intent was to payoff these countries, get the sanctions lifted and go back to business as usual. For better or worse, Bush ended this 10+ year process of delay and corruption.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I was against the war but do think that if it the war was necessary that the US had to lead unilaterally and waiting on the UN and France was a fantasy. And Kerry and Edwards are the one in denial as to that option.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Why, exactly, were you against the war?

I am a libertarian who believes we should get ourselves out of all these foreign entanglements. Both Bush and Kerry are members of the bi-partisan intervetionist establishment that has supported our entanglement in theses matters since WWII.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The objective analysis is that the various reports this week on no WMDs (which is not really new since we have all known it for over a year) and the Benz for Oil program leaves both campaigns completely discredited.

Bush "He has WMDs"

Kerry "The UN process is working, we need France and Germany on board, give sanctions more time"

They are both a joke on this issue. One man in denial that Saddam had WMDs and one man in denial that he is not a pacifist.

Bush tied his argument to WMDs and Kerry tied his argument to the UN and Old Europe. Both are fools.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What is it that you think the sanctions were designed to do, that they were not in fact doing?
I've always thought that the sanctions were meant to prevent Saddam from re-arming. I think that by any measure, they were fabulously effective in that regard.

Yes ... but how long do we leave them in place and how many Iraqis must continue to be further impoverished by the sanctions while the UN pretends to help them with the Benz for Oil program that its leaders knew was a fraud. My point was that, at some time, you have to piss or get off the pot. The Benz for Oil program would not have been necessary if Saddam was in compliance or the UN acted on that non-compliance.

Either get out of the Mid East or deal effectively with Saddam if you stay. Continuing a corrupt interminable process with an impotent international organization whose highest members are betraying each other is the worse of both worlds.

They did have the nasty side effect of hurting the Iraqi people, which the oil for FOOD program was designed (unsuccessfully) to mitigate...

[wacki]

Nice, post, just use these from now on. (remove the periods to get them to work.)

[quote.]
[ QUOTE ]
QUOTE


[/ QUOTE ]
[/quote.]




[b]BOLD

[/b.]




[i]Itali....

[/i.]

[Felix_Nietsche]

USA = United States of America
UN = United nations

[tanda]

Koffi just e-mailed me with a correction. I have been incorrectly referring to it as the Benz for Oil Program.

He informs me that its official name is Mercedes Benz To Drive Qusay and Uday To School To Grab Girls To Rape For Oil Program.

I replied and asked for the proper short-hand name. I am awaiting his reply. The full name is quite a handful.

[Felix_Nietsche]

The UN has been useful for enriching lots of world leaders through the numerous bribes paid.

The GNP of the UN "Oil for Palaces" program exceeds the GNP of many countries...

[Chris Alger]

I take it you were inspired by Albright's comments or some apologist for US unilateralism invoking the old theme of UN ineffectualism, ignoring as always the apathy of the 800 gorilla on the Security Council.

But how is the U.S. going to help Darfur, much less the "only one" to do so? Both presidential candidates have pledged to refrain from intervening: <ul type="square"> During the presidential debate last week, President George W. Bush said he won't commit troops for the conflict, preferring to send aid through the African Union. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry said that if elected, he would not send U.S. forces to stop the attacks if they're needed in Iraq and Afghanistan. [/list] Detroit Free Press (http://www.freep.com/news/nw/sudan8e_20041008.htm) The reference to the African Union is a particularly bad joke on the victims of Dafur, as it has denied the genocidal nature of the slaughter.

That the U.S. could care less about Dafur was recently underscored by State Dept. Deputy Spokesman Adam Ereli (at the 10/5 daily press conference), describing the official line as follows: <ul type="square"> [W]hat we are going to be looking for is an end to attacks by government forces on the civilian population, no further breaches of the N'Djamena ceasefire by government forces, steps by the Government of Sudan to stop the Jingaweit militia from attacking civilians, and should the government be unable to do so, it should request international assistance to fulfill its responsibility in this regard. [/list] Do you see any plans by the U.S. to do anything more than ask the killers to stop it, much less to intervene ourselves? The U.S. isn't even proposing that international police be sent (as UN envoys recently requested) unless they're requested by the government of Sudan. Does that sound like the U.S. is coming to the rescue? Like you said, "impotent because of oil." Also note that the same characters who so eagerly to put a humane spin on the U.S. destruction of Iraq ("mass graves," "killing fields") don't care any more for the victims of Dafur than they actually do for the victims of Saddam.

BTW, here's Ereli describing the UN's performance: <ul type="square">I think the UN has been very active and has played a very crucial role in addressing this problem. ... I think that the UN moved quickly and is playing a critical and vital role in marshalling international opinion and international resources on behalf of the people of Darfur. I would also note that the report by the Secretary General's Special Humanitarian Representative early on in this crisis brought to the attention of the Security Council what was going on and I think focused attention on it and galvanized opinion in a very positive way. So, all in all, the UN involvement has been timely and important and they continue to be a critical actor in resolving this crisis. [/list]Of course the U.S. isn't going to do anything. Sudan is the UK's colonial hangover, we're looking for Blair to pony up, or have some multinational force that includes, at most, only a token presence of U.S. troops.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I take it you were inspired by Albright's comments or some apologist for US unilateralism invoking the old theme of UN ineffectualism, ignoring as always the apathy of the 800 gorilla on the Security Council.

[/ QUOTE ]

What 800 pound gorilla? Did I talk about troops?

I was talking about OIL! The UN can't impose sanctions because of China, Pakistan likes their OIL! That is all I'm saying. We can't send in troops, they are a nonthreatening sovereign nation. The government is being complicit with the genocide.


Also, the US is supplying more aid than all other countries combined. In fact if you add up all of the countries add into one lump sum, add 60%, that's how much we are giving. I could go on, but what's the point.

Africa is messed up anyway.

In the past 50 years, 186 coups and 26 major wars have killed over seven million people and cost Africa $250 billion. More than 26 million Africans are infected with HIV and an estimated 15 million have died from AIDS, including many people from the continent's relatively small educated and business class.

[meow_meow]

I was referring to your avatar.

Man, that thing is ugly.

[wacki]

Ya, it is ugly. But it makes me laugh.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
We can't send in troops, they are a nonthreatening sovereign nation

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL.

[ QUOTE ]
The UN can't impose sanctions because of China, Pakistan likes their OIL! That is all I'm saying.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, that's not all you're saying. You asked whether we "are we the only good country" on the Sudan issue. Okay, where has the U.S. proposed or agreed to accept sanctions and therefore unlike these other countries not "complicit with the genocide?"

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the US is supplying more aid than all other countries combined.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which is like saying that the land mass of the U.S. is bigger than all the other donor countries combined. The world's largest economy can always afford to give more while sacrificing less. Its assistance to Sudan during the current crisis has been proportionally dwarfed by that other "only good country," Norway, sending about 1/4th the amount of aid with an economy less than 2% as big as ours.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

Which is like saying that the land mass of the U.S. is bigger than all the other donor countries combined. The world's largest economy can always afford to give more while sacrificing less. Its assistance to Sudan during the current crisis has been proportionally dwarfed by that other "only good country," Norway, sending about 1/4th the amount of aid with an economy less than 2% as big as ours.

[/ QUOTE ]

very good point. Norway is good....

[citanul]

Uh, I don't recall the US doing anything about Darfur. Something may have happened very recently, but as far as I know, we've done a declaration of genocide, and a whole lot of ducking the concept in the debates, so far. I haven't exactly heard anything about troop deployment out there.

In Re: we can't do anything because they are a nonthreatening sovereign nation, whoever said that must not have heard about the last country we attacked.

citanul