Kick the UN out!

Damnit Sander, do you like to troll the topics I am partaking in and take every damn thing I say literally?

MIDDLE EAST = This Big Region Called THE MIDDLE EAST Not Israel/Palestine

Just because most morons think the middle east is confined to Israel/Palestine doesn't mean I have to lower myself to their level. Perhaps you need to go back to geography? Now, I don't know, but I thought I clarified my argument really damn well in my last post in this topic, but I guess I must appease you by doing it again.

1) Just because the UN signs a paper declaring there should be peace in the middle east, doesn't mean it's going to happen at the flick of a switch.

2) The US has, and have had, many intentions in the middle east INCLUDING Israel to come to peace terms. I'd like to see you try and do it all by yourself, if you can do better, then more power to you, become an ambassador or something and give it a shot.

3) Despite what some people may think, the US is not "teh eval satan pigs." Some of our leaders may fit that profile, but even they try and look good sometimes.

4) Yes the US has used its veto power to argue it's point, and it has been the only one to do so ever. (I dearly hope you don't take this one literally Sander)

is an example of bullshit argumentation. 'They're our allies, so we must always support them!'
Tschyeah, right. By this bullshit argument, anyone should support an ally no matter what they do. Might I point out that this can lead to atrocious things? Allies aren't there to be protected no matter what, they're there to help eachother, but not to turn a blind eye when something bad happens. Or at least that's how it should work. Obviously, that's not how it does work.

*sigh*

I said, "God forbid, someone should want to protect their ally." NOT "They're our allies, so we must always support them!"

Go read properly yourself, next time.

I hope I'm not the only one here to notices the rushed hypocricy.

And, supporting your allies is good, especially when you feel it's for a good reason. Yes, sometimes even the best of intentions can be fatal, but in this case, it's a holy war, a messy war, which noone wants to be involved in, but yet we try. Please, send the Palestinians or Israelis a letter asking for peace, and tell us your results. In truth, every nation part of the security council has their own issues with the middle east, or PART of it like let's say, Israel and/or Palestine, so maybe when we're all done bickering, someone might want to sacrifice their "noble" intentions to do some good. Notice how I also said "we're all" as in the US included. Just wanted to point that out before you once again made a hasty, angry remark because you got up on the wrong side of the bed or something.
 
ok, so you require fancy words with calmed wisdom? too much harshness for you is it?

fine, let me quote this article:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/04-19-2004/un.htm

At the center of the latest UN corruption cesspool are Kofi Annan’s hand-picked director of the oil-for-food program, Benon Sevan, and Annan’s son, Kojo Annan. Documents surfacing in Iraq indicate that Sevan and the younger Annan profited handsomely from the bribe-riddled program, while helping Saddam Hussein launder billions of dollars in oil money to pay for weapons and his lavish lifestyle. Meanwhile, Secretary-General Kofi Annan has protected Sevan and Annan Jr. with repeated coverups and stonewalling.

and
And the secretary-general is far from pristine clean himself. According to various reports, Kofi Annan personally approved oil-for-food funds for some of Saddam’s projects that definitely had nothing to do with the humanitarian aid permitted by Resolution 986 or any of the subsequent UN resolutions. [bold]Take, for instance, the $50 million Annan approved for Saddam’s radio and TV propaganda broadcasting system, or the $20 million for Saddam’s son, Uday Hussein, for a spectacular Olympic sport complex.[/bold]

oh poor sadam's son needs a TV, oh maybe he needs a stadium too?

oh wait what about this?
The scandal surrounding oil-for-food has been building for the past year, yet Annan has repeatedly stalled and stonewalled, refusing to release documents sought by independent auditors and critics of the program. This, of course, runs completely contrary to Annan’s regular sermons on the need for absolute "transparency" in government to protect against corruption. Consider, for instance, his address to the UN’s 1999 International Anti-Corruption Conference (IACC) in Durban, South Africa.

so what does that mean?
poor innocent and helping others anan's family is really unaware of the huge theft, but when someone tries to clear the fog and look for the REAL blames he what? he dodges, he doesnt know anything about it, he was really oblivous to the fact that he gave billions of dollars for a known dictator and supporter of terror, oh lets say, for really innocent demands by him.


and listen to this:
Benon Sevan, Kofi Annan’s assistant who headed the thoroughly corrupt oil-for-food program, is attempting to escape scrutiny through early retirement. In a March 11 story, Wall Street Journal reporter Therese Raphael wrote:

Mr. Sevan’s name appears on a list of individuals, companies and organizations that allegedly received oil allocations or vouchers from Saddam that could then be sold via middlemen for a significant markup. The list, compiled in Arabic from documents uncovered in Iraq’s oil ministry, included many of Saddam’s nearest and dearest from some 50 countries, including the PLO, pro-Saddam British MP George Galloway, and French politician Charles Pasqua
(fucking frogleggers)
. (Messrs. Galloway and Pasqua have denied receiving anything from Saddam.) According to the list, first published by the Iraqi daily Al Mada in January, Mr. Sevan was another beneficiary, via a company in Panama known as Africa Middle East Petroleum Co. Ltd. (AMEP)....

so, the assistant for the UN general secretary is getting free vouchers from sadam...hmm, NO it can't be related!

so lets see.......... we got:
-kofi anan himself saying he doesnt jack about the thing after givining humongous sums of money for "electrical housing" and "gymnistic stuff" for the "very aconomicly challeneged" sadam's son.

-his assistant, sevan, recieving coupons via his company for the oil he got from sadam and sell it by profits of 10 cents to 35 cents among 270 officials and buisnessman in this humanitarian trade!

read the washington post as well if you dont take their word-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A48225-2004Nov13?language=printer

The disclosures, drawn from interviews with more than two dozen current and former U.N. officials and diplomats, follow a report last month by the top U.S. weapons inspector, Charles A. Duelfer, that Hussein personally approved the allocation of vouchers to Sevan, among about 270 other officials and businessmen, to sell millions of barrels of Iraqi crude at a profit of 10 cents to 35 cents a barrel

or

After Hussein's government fell in April 2003, evidence of corruption in the program spurred investigations in Baghdad, Washington and New York. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan appointed former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker to investigate allegations that U.N. officials, including Sevan, and foreign companies received illegal payoffs. That investigation continues.

and this, wierd..
U.S. and U.N. officials acknowledge that by allowing Hussein's government to negotiate contracts directly with thousands of foreign companies, the Security Council provided wide scope for abuses in the program. The council's decision-making process, which requires consensus among all its 15 members, made it difficult to impose anti-corruption reforms, U.S. and U.N. officials said.

"Any plan that would have denied the authority of the Iraqi government to select its own purchasers of Iraqi oil and suppliers of humanitarian products would have been rejected by a number of key Security Council member states," Kennedy told Congress

if it was sooooo difficult to impose anti-corruption reforms, isn't that obvious that the decision for trades should be held by the **UN** and not **iraq*** ?

how mysterious... :lol:
 
Saddam's regime malversed international aid money.

Flabbergasting.

And your point is...?

Do some research on how the US openly supported with material, weapons and intelligence (and continues to support in some cases) dictators and terrorist organizations.

THEN, you might start thinking about bashing the oil-for-food program and the fact its finances weren't, from top to bottom, supervised by the people in charge of delivering that money.
 
(to wooz) the point is that you should stop being pasimistic about everything, the fact that everyone deals with arms with dubious motives, doesnt mean we defend the fuckers, and that's what's happening here which is a bad attitude IMFO.

you can say it backwards-US deal arms, UN kickbacks from oil deals, it doesnt change the scream of the innocent that suffered from it.
 
aegis said:
ok, so you require fancy words with calmed wisdom? too much harshness for you is it?

fine, let me quote this article:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/04-19-2004/un.htm

At the center of the latest UN corruption cesspool are Kofi Annan’s hand-picked director of the oil-for-food program, Benon Sevan, and Annan’s son, Kojo Annan. Documents surfacing in Iraq indicate that Sevan and the younger Annan profited handsomely from the bribe-riddled program, while helping Saddam Hussein launder billions of dollars in oil money to pay for weapons and his lavish lifestyle. Meanwhile, Secretary-General Kofi Annan has protected Sevan and Annan Jr. with repeated coverups and stonewalling.

and
And the secretary-general is far from pristine clean himself. According to various reports, Kofi Annan personally approved oil-for-food funds for some of Saddam’s projects that definitely had nothing to do with the humanitarian aid permitted by Resolution 986 or any of the subsequent UN resolutions. [bold]Take, for instance, the $50 million Annan approved for Saddam’s radio and TV propaganda broadcasting system, or the $20 million for Saddam’s son, Uday Hussein, for a spectacular Olympic sport complex.[/bold]

oh poor sadam's son needs a TV, oh maybe he needs a stadium too?

oh wait what about this?
The scandal surrounding oil-for-food has been building for the past year, yet Annan has repeatedly stalled and stonewalled, refusing to release documents sought by independent auditors and critics of the program. This, of course, runs completely contrary to Annan’s regular sermons on the need for absolute "transparency" in government to protect against corruption. Consider, for instance, his address to the UN’s 1999 International Anti-Corruption Conference (IACC) in Durban, South Africa.

so what does that mean?
poor innocent and helping others anan's family is really unaware of the huge theft, but when someone tries to clear the fog and look for the REAL blames he what? he dodges, he doesnt know anything about it, he was really oblivous to the fact that he gave billions of dollars for a known dictator and supporter of terror, oh lets say, for really innocent demands by him.



Let`s start here. Bennon Sevan is indeed guilty of grosse negligence, together with two other UN officials in completely unrelated cases. The UN staff moves for a vote of non-confidence to Annan because of that. He was bound to fall, with the rumours concerning his son showing up everywhere, and later beeing found true, in the sense that althougfh he stopped working for a Swiss company that operated in that program he continued to get money from them, no doubt because he had access to previledge information. So again he was going down, but then what happened?

This campaign by the american right wing started, and the UN closed ranks behind Kofi Anan. First because the idea that a country that went to an illegal war in international law terms, war that caused the bombing by Al-Qaeda of the UN headquarters in Bagdad , the largest lost of UN civil staff ever, was now starting to try to come with arguments based on moral high grounds that don`t exist was ridiculous for them. They decided to close ranks and he got away with it.So yes the americans were highly efective in keeping Annan in his job, from where he should have been sacked long ago, bravo.

He brought an american to investigate the deal, and was ready to make open all the documents to the US senate, when this campaign started. So he backed off, and now claims that only after the american makes a final report things will be taken care off. And i really don`t blame him, since the american right goes ballistic on him but forgive the dealings by their own with Iran


Benon Sevan, Kofi Annan’s assistant who headed the thoroughly corrupt oil-for-food program, is attempting to escape scrutiny through early retirement. In a March 11 story, Wall Street Journal reporter Therese Raphael wrote:

Mr. Sevan’s name appears on a list of individuals, companies and organizations that allegedly received oil allocations or vouchers from Saddam that could then be sold via middlemen for a significant markup. The list, compiled in Arabic from documents uncovered in Iraq’s oil ministry, included many of Saddam’s nearest and dearest from some 50 countries, including the PLO, pro-Saddam British MP George Galloway, and French politician Charles Pasqua
(fucking frogleggers)
. (Messrs. Galloway and Pasqua have denied receiving anything from Saddam.) According to the list, first published by the Iraqi daily Al Mada in January, Mr. Sevan was another beneficiary, via a company in Panama known as Africa Middle East Petroleum Co. Ltd. (AMEP)....

so, the assistant for the UN general secretary is getting free vouchers from sadam...hmm, NO it can't be related!

so lets see.......... we got:
-kofi anan himself saying he doesnt jack about the thing after givining humongous sums of money for "electrical housing" and "gymnistic stuff" for the "very aconomicly challeneged" sadam's son.

-his assistant, sevan, recieving coupons via his company for the oil he got from sadam and sell it by profits of 10 cents to 35 cents among 270 officials and buisnessman in this humanitarian trade!

read the washington post as well if you dont take their word-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A48225-2004Nov13?language=printer

The disclosures, drawn from interviews with more than two dozen current and former U.N. officials and diplomats, follow a report last month by the top U.S. weapons inspector, Charles A. Duelfer, that Hussein personally approved the allocation of vouchers to Sevan, among about 270 other officials and businessmen, to sell millions of barrels of Iraqi crude at a profit of 10 cents to 35 cents a barrel

or

After Hussein's government fell in April 2003, evidence of corruption in the program spurred investigations in Baghdad, Washington and New York. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan appointed former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker to investigate allegations that U.N. officials, including Sevan, and foreign companies received illegal payoffs. That investigation continues.

and this, wierd..
U.S. and U.N. officials acknowledge that by allowing Hussein's government to negotiate contracts directly with thousands of foreign companies, the Security Council provided wide scope for abuses in the program. The council's decision-making process, which requires consensus among all its 15 members, made it difficult to impose anti-corruption reforms, U.S. and U.N. officials said.

"Any plan that would have denied the authority of the Iraqi government to select its own purchasers of Iraqi oil and suppliers of humanitarian products would have been rejected by a number of key Security Council member states," Kennedy told Congress

if it was sooooo difficult to impose anti-corruption reforms, isn't that obvious that the decision for trades should be held by the **UN** and not **iraq*** ?

how mysterious... :lol:

I`m sorry but that list is crap. Everyone from french politicians, to the former indonesian president to arab leaders or british anti war politicians show up there, wich is freaking convenient.

First the first names on that list get to be cleared by the courts, wich isn`t a good sign, then people at the UN start to talk publically what i`ve been earing for years now:


DENIS HALLIDAY: Yes. Oil-for-Food was established in the mid-1990s, 1996-1997 in particular, to, under pressure from the world at large on the Security Council, particularly Washington and London, who drove the sanctions regime of the United Nations, to provide a means for the Iraqi people to have access to foodstuffs, pharmaceuticals and some basic equipment for education, the health care sector, agricultural sector. The government in Baghdad was allowed to sell a certain amount of oil, initially $4 billion gross per year. And that money was then used for sending out invitations, international bidding on foodstuffs, particularly pharmaceuticals. Those contracts were then approved or not approved by the Security Council in New York. The goods were delivered. The payments were made by the United Nations. No money went into the hands of the Iraqi people. The fact is, however, under sanctions -- sanctions is a form of warfare. Any opportunity the Iraqis had to find hard currency they naturally sought and obviously accomplished. Now, there was -- the scandal, quote, unquote, is in my view, nonsense. The United States was perfectly well aware of the trade between Turkey and Iraq under sanctions. They knew that Baghdad was exporting paraffin, gasoline and oil into Turkey. It was monitored by U.S. satellites. It was agreed upon with Turkey, because Turkey is an ally, a friendly NATO member and so on, and this was compensation to Turkey for the loss of revenue given the sanctions on Iraq, its close trading neighbor and partner. There is no scandal. Everything that has happened has been monitored by the United States and Britain. The contracts were approved by the United States and Britain. The kickbacks made by companies who provided supplies, in my view, were also known. And likewise, when it came to the sale of oil by Iraq, including some 40% going to American companies indirectly, including Chevron, of Miss Rice at one stage, they also paid those kickbacks indirectly and certainly in full knowledge of what they were doing. As you know during the sanctions period, some 9 or 10% of the oil coming into the United States was Iraqi oil. So there's no scandal. Washington has been fully informed. I think as Carl Levin has said, mentioned in The New York Times today or yesterday, we knew what was going on. I knew what was going on. We knew that there was smuggling and trade going on outside sanctions. We knew perfectly well that Washington had approved this trade.



Yeah, this reminded me of a newsbit from the Washington Post a few years ago:
alliburton's Iraq Deals Greater Than Cheney Has Said
Affiliates Had $73 Million in Contracts
By Colum Lynch
Special to The Washington Post
Saturday, June 23, 2001; Page A01

UNITED NATIONS -- During last year's presidential campaign, Richard B. Cheney acknowledged that the oil-field supply corporation he headed, Halliburton Co., did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries. But he insisted that he had imposed a "firm policy" against trading with Iraq.

"Iraq's different," he said.

According to oil industry executives and confidential United Nations records, however, Halliburton held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer of the Dallas-based company.

Two former senior executives of the Halliburton subsidiaries say that, as far as they knew, there was no policy against doing business with Iraq. One of the executives also says that although he never spoke directly to Cheney about the Iraqi contracts, he is certain Cheney knew about them.

Mary Matalin, Cheney's counselor, said that if he "was ever in a conversation or meeting where there was a question of pursuing a project with someone in Iraq, he said, 'No.' "

"In a joint venture, he would not have reviewed all their existing contracts," Matalin said. "The nature of those joint ventures was that they had a separate governing structure, so he had no control over them."

The trade was perfectly legal. Indeed, it is a case study of how U.S. firms routinely use foreign subsidiaries and joint ventures to avoid the opprobrium of doing business with Baghdad, which does not violate U.S. law as long as it occurs within the "oil-for-food" program run by the United Nations.

Halliburton's trade with Iraq was first reported by The Washington Post in February 2000. But U.N. records recently obtained by The Post show that the dealings were more extensive than originally reported and than Vice President Cheney has acknowledged.

As secretary of defense in the first Bush administration, Cheney helped to lead a multinational coalition against Iraq in the Persian Gulf War and to devise a comprehensive economic embargo to isolate Saddam Hussein's government. After Cheney was named in 1995 to head Halliburton, he promised to maintain a hard line against Baghdad.

But in 1998, Cheney oversaw Halliburton's acquisition of Dresser Industries Inc., which exported equipment to Iraq through two subsidiaries of a joint venture with another large U.S. equipment maker, Ingersoll-Rand Co.

The subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co., sold water and sewage treatment pumps, spare parts for oil facilities and pipeline equipment to Baghdad through French affiliates from the first half of 1997 to the summer of 2000, U.N. records show. Ingersoll Dresser Pump also signed contracts -- later blocked by the United States -- to help repair an Iraqi oil terminal that U.S.-led military forces destroyed in the Gulf War.

Former executives at the subsidiaries said they had never heard objections -- from Cheney or any other Halliburton official -- to trading with Baghdad.

"Halliburton and Ingersoll-Rand, as far as I know, had no official policy about that, other than we would be in compliance with applicable U.S. and international laws," said Cleive Dumas, who oversaw Ingersoll Dresser Pump's business in the Middle East, including Iraq.

Halliburton's primary concern, added Ingersoll-Rand's former chairman, James E. Perrella, "was that if we did business with [the Iraqi regime], that it be allowed by the United States government. If it wasn't allowed, we wouldn't do it."

Dumas and Perrella said their companies' commercial links to the Iraqi oil industry began before the U.N. Security Council imposed an oil embargo on Baghdad in the wake of its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

They returned to dealing with Iraq after the council established the "oil-for-food" program in December 1996, permitting Iraq to export oil under U.N. supervision and use the proceeds to buy food, medicine and humanitarian goods. The program was expanded in 1998 to allow Iraq to import spare parts for its oil facilities.

The Halliburton subsidiaries joined dozens of American and foreign oil supply companies that helped Iraq increase its crude exports from $4 billion in 1997 to nearly $18 billion in 2000. Since the program began, Iraq has exported oil worth more than $40 billion.

The proceeds funded a sharp increase in the country's nutritional standards, nearly doubling the food rations distributed to Iraq's poor.

But U.S. and European officials acknowledged that the expanded production also increased Saddam Hussein's capacity to siphon off money for weapons, luxury goods and palaces. Security Council diplomats estimate that Iraq may be skimming off as much as 10 percent of the proceeds from the oil-for-food program.

Cheney has offered contradictory accounts of how much he knew about Halliburton's dealings with Iraq. In a July 30, 2000, interview on ABC-TV's "This Week," he denied that Halliburton or its subsidiaries traded with Baghdad.

"I had a firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal," he said. "We've not done any business in Iraq since U.N. sanctions were imposed on Iraq in 1990, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn't do that."

Cheney modified his response in an interview on the same program three weeks later, after he was informed that a Halliburton spokesman had acknowledged that Dresser Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump traded with Iraq.

He said he was unaware that the subsidiaries were doing business with the Iraqi regime when Halliburton purchased Dresser Industries in September 1998.

"We inherited two joint ventures with Ingersoll-Rand that were selling some parts into Iraq," Cheney explained, "but we divested ourselves of those interests."

The divestiture, however, was not immediate. The firms traded with Baghdad for more than a year under Cheney, signing nearly $30 million in contracts before he sold Halliburton's 49 percent stake in Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. in December 1999 and its 51 percent interest in Dresser Rand to Ingersoll-Rand in February 2000, according to U.N. records.

Perrella said he believes Halliburton officials must have known about the Iraqi links before they purchased Dresser. "They obviously did due diligence," he said.

And even if Cheney was not told about the business with Baghdad before the purchase, Perrella said, the CEO almost certainly would have learned about it after the acquisition. "Oh, definitely, he was aware of the business," Perrella said, although Perrella conceded that this was an assumption based on knowledge of how the company worked, not a fact to which he could personally attest because he never discussed the Iraqi contracts with Cheney.

A long-time critic of unilateral U.S. sanctions, which he has argued penalize American companies while failing to punish the targeted regimes, Cheney has pushed for a review of U.S. policy toward countries such as Iraq, Iran and Libya.

In the first expression of that new thinking, the Bush administration is campaigning in the U.N. Security Council to end an 11-year embargo on sales of civilian goods, including oil-related equipment, to Iraq.

U.S. officials say the new policy is aimed at easing restrictions on companies that conduct legitimate trade with Iraq, while clamping down on weapons smuggling and other black-market activity.

If the plan is approved, there would be "nothing to stop Iraq from importing [as many] oil spare parts as it needs" from Halliburton and other suppliers, according to a British official who briefed reporters on the proposal when it was introduced last month.

Cheney resigned as chairman of Halliburton last August. Although he has retained stock options worth about $8 million, he has arranged to donate to charity any profits from the eventual exercise of those options, Glover Weiss said.

Confidential U.N. documents show that Halliburton's affiliates have had broad, and sometimes controversial, dealings with the Iraqi regime.

For instance, the documents detail more than $2.5 million in contracts between Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. and Iraq that were blocked by the Clinton administration. They included agreements by the firm to sell $760,000 in spare parts, compressors and firefighting equipment to refurbish an offshore oil terminal, Khor al Amaya.

The Persian Gulf terminal was badly damaged during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War and later was destroyed by allied warplanes during Operation Desert Storm. At the time, Cheney was secretary of defense.

Washington halted the sale because the facility was "not authorized under the oil-for-food deal," according to U.N. documents. Under the terms of the oil-for-food program, Baghdad is permitted to export crude oil, subject to U.N. supervision, through only two terminals, Ceyhan in Turkey and Mina al Bakr on the Persian Gulf.

The equipment was never delivered to Iraq, but Baghdad subsequently repaired the Khor al Amaya facility on its own.

A senior Iraqi oil ministry official, Faiz Shaheen, told an official Iraqi newspaper that Iraq would soon be able to export about 600,000 barrels a day of crude oil from the terminal.

Dumas said he was not aware of the dispute over the Khor al Amaya terminal. It was unlikely, he added, that Cheney or other top Halliburton executives would have known about the specific deals. "We had great independence in running our business," he said.

U.S. officials say the Bush administration is prepared to allow Iraq to resume exports from Khor al Amaya, as long as the earnings are placed in a U.N. escrow account that is used to pay for humanitarian supplies and further improvements to the oil industry.

"The U.S. attitude towards Iraqi exports has evolved considerably," said James A. Placke, a Washington-based analyst for Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consulting firm. "They used to tightly restrict Iraqi oil exports, and now there is no limitation on Iraqi exports."

Iraq's power to entice foreign investment, meanwhile, has increased with the soaring demand for oil. U.S. companies, which have been able to trade with Iraq only through foreign subsidiaries and middlemen, are wary of dealing with Baghdad but eager to get a piece of the action, according to industry sources.

"The American oil industry is very interested in trying to enter Iraq," said J. Robinson West, chairman of Petroleum Finance Co., a consulting firm. "But I think that they are quite respectful of U.S. policy towards Saddam Hussein. There is a very strong feeling that in fact he is the greatest threat to oil production in the Middle East."

Maybe a few names on that list are missing...
 
Damnit Sander, do you like to troll the topics I am partaking in and take every damn thing I say literally?

MIDDLE EAST = This Big Region Called THE MIDDLE EAST Not Israel/Palestine


Just because most morons think the middle east is confined to Israel/Palestine doesn't mean I have to lower myself to their level.
Well duh. And that wasn't wat I was saying, though I possbily said it poorly, I was making the point that Israel and Palestine are, usually, still considered to be part of the Middle East. And Peace in the Middle East also means Peace in Israel and Palestine.
Perhaps you need to go back to geography?
Perhaps you need to read again what I said? As in "it's not just a geographical word"
Now, I don't know, but I thought I clarified my argument really damn well in my last post in this topic, but I guess I must appease you by doing it again.

1) Just because the UN signs a paper declaring there should be peace in the middle east, doesn't mean it's going to happen at the flick of a switch.
No. But it does mean that there is now a good, internationally supported, movement towards peace.

2) The US has, and have had, many intentions in the middle east INCLUDING Israel to come to peace terms. I'd like to see you try and do it all by yourself, if you can do better, then more power to you, become an ambassador or something and give it a shot.
Okay, so your point being "We did something, it didn't work, but you can't do it better, so hah!"
What? So I can't criticise people for not doing everything better (there's a difference between not doing something, doing something poorly, and doing something well), if I'm not in a position to do it myself. What bullshit. Criticism can alwayd be voiced, especially in a democratic society, and especially if the people do NOT have the means to do something, because that means that criticism is their onlyb means left.

3) Despite what some people may think, the US is not "teh eval satan pigs." Some of our leaders may fit that profile, but even they try and look good sometimes.
Completely beside the point. By now, after a year or so on this board, you should've realised that I am not one of the people thinking that. Try not to insult me by making such a point, please.
4) Yes the US has used its veto power to argue it's point, and it has been the only one to do so ever. (I dearly hope you don't take this one literally Sander)
What? If you don't want me to take something literally, choose your words more properly. This the internet, I can only judge by the words written and nothing else, because I have no other information.
Plus, what the hell is there not to take literaly in this non-argument? "USA has used its veto to argue its point" (poor choice of words), now, tell me what I can't take literally there?
*sigh*

I said, "God forbid, someone should want to protect their ally." NOT "They're our allies, so we must always support them!"
Tell me what the difference is, will you. That sentence is expressing the sentiment that "They're our allies, so we must protect them." That's a causal relationship, and I think there've been enough reasons given to not protect them as welll. In other words, you are trying to embellish that your sentiment is "they're our allies, so we must protect them".
If that's not what you meant, you should've chosen your words more properly, since I am sadly not clairvoyant.

I hope I'm not the only one here to notices the rushed hypocricy.
Do I need to emphasize yet again, as I've done so many times in the past, that I do read everything properly, and that I do understand everything? I really do. And I think I've explained here how. Now, if you'd not insult me.

And, supporting your allies is good, especially when you feel it's for a good reason. Yes, sometimes even the best of intentions can be fatal, but in this case, it's a holy war, a messy war, which noone wants to be involved in, but yet we try. Please, send the Palestinians or Israelis a letter asking for peace, and tell us your results. In truth, every nation part of the security council has their own issues with the middle east, or PART of it like let's say, Israel and/or Palestine, so maybe when we're all done bickering, someone might want to sacrifice their "noble" intentions to do some good. Notice how I also said "we're all" as in the US included. Just wanted to point that out before you once again made a hasty, angry remark because you got up on the wrong side of the bed or something.
Okay, first of all, your first sentence expresses the correct sentiment: supporting your allies is good, IF you feel it's for a good reason. (Note that I changed the word especially to if). Supporting your allies is not per se good, it is only good if done for a good reason.
Secondly, your points are non-points. "We all want it to end" and "No-one lieks this" and all are all so obviously true it is absolutely futile to note this. This is, however, something completely different from saying that the way in which the US, the UN or anyone else works is good.
aegis:
ok, so you require fancy words with calmed wisdom? too much harshness for you is it?
I think that Briosa answered all your points properly, so I'll just address this one bit of text. Why the hell are you attacking me (or perhaps someone else) on preferring calm wisdown over rage? I do not "require fancy words" (where the hell did you get that from?), I do like calmed wisdom because that allows you to more properly address points others make, and it allows you to see more properly of what's going on instead of just screaming at eachother. I don't know whether it's me, but I, for some reason, find that more pleasant.
 
Okay, so your point being "We did something, it didn't work, but you can't do it better, so hah!"
What? So I can't criticise people for not doing everything better (there's a difference between not doing something, doing something poorly, and doing something well), if I'm not in a position to do it myself. What bullshit. Criticism can alwayd be voiced, especially in a democratic society, and especially if the people do NOT have the means to do something, because that means that criticism is their onlyb means left.

I'm not saying you can't critisize, I'm asking you how would you have the UN go about it? What will the Arabs think of the UN, which includes the US intervening in their world and afairs? Where is the money coming from? You can't expect the U.S. to be the only one to penny up the dough. I was merely suggesting that if you have a fool-proof plan, or even a good one that has a chance of working, then please, enlighten us.

Try not to insult me by making such a point, please.

I wasn't insulting you when I said...

4) Yes the US has used its veto power to argue it's point, and it has been the only one to do so ever. (I dearly hope you don't take this one literally Sander)

I was insulting you when I said...

Perhaps you need to go back to geography?

Which may have been a little uncalled for on my part, but hey, when this is done and over, we can all grab a drink...or smoke, whichever suits you, and sing happy songs until dawn. Hey, if me and Wooz somehow made friends, then I'm sure we can too.

Tell me what the difference is, will you. That sentence is expressing the sentiment that "They're our allies, so we must protect them." That's a causal relationship, and I think there've been enough reasons given to not protect them as welll. In other words, you are trying to embellish that your sentiment is "they're our allies, so we must protect them".
If that's not what you meant, you should've chosen your words more properly, since I am sadly not clairvoyant.

I said "PROTECT OUR ALLIES" and "GOD FORBID." Meaning, should it be unacceptable for an ally to want to protect its ally, nevermind the causes and/or reasons, since I did not state whether there were any. I never said we must ALWAYS support and/or protect them anywhere.

I hope I'm not the only one here to notices the rushed hypocricy.

Do I need to emphasize yet again, as I've done so many times in the past, that I do read everything properly, and that I do understand everything? I really do. And I think I've explained here how. Now, if you'd not insult me.

I actually wasn't trying to insult you there...heh.
 
YOu're welcome Sander.

But I am somewhat sympathetic. The UN does have a history of rather shady dealings (of course the current administration saying that is hypocracy) but that doesn't mean that the UN shouldn't be cleaned up.

Dumping the UN would be an incrediably stupid idea. But every organization needs to take stock of itself and see where it goes wrong.

But folks, let's be honest here a bit, historically and worldwide, political office has been a means to gain private wealth. If this is true in most states, than we could expect it in the UN. So yeah, it should be cleaned.

But you need not throw out the baby with the bathwater.



But getting rid of the
 
I'm not saying you can't critisize, I'm asking you how would you have the UN go about it? What will the Arabs think of the UN, which includes the US intervening in their world and afairs? Where is the money coming from? You can't expect the U.S. to be the only one to penny up the dough. I was merely suggesting that if you have a fool-proof plan, or even a good one that has a chance of working, then please, enlighten us.
I've done that before. But I've also come to the conclusion that they don't want peace, they want elimination of the other side (they being Israel and Palestine). Some of the things that are extremely easy to do aren't being done. Things like stopping retaliatory attacks, not taking out power plants to punish Palestinians, trying to create more goodwill, placing that wall a bit better, etc. etc.

I wasn't insulting you when I said...

4) Yes the US has used its veto power to argue it's point, and it has been the only one to do so ever. (I dearly hope you don't take this one literally Sander)


I was insulting you when I said...
You can't even get that right? I replied with that in response to point 3, not point 4.
Which may have been a little uncalled for on my part, but hey, when this is done and over, we can all grab a drink...or smoke, whichever suits you, and sing happy songs until dawn. Hey, if me and Wooz somehow made friends, then I'm sure we can too.
Of course. This is just a debate.

I said "PROTECT OUR ALLIES" and "GOD FORBID." Meaning, should it be unacceptable for an ally to want to protect its ally, nevermind the causes and/or reasons, since I did not state whether there were any. I never said we must ALWAYS support and/or protect them anywhere.
Jesus bloody Christ, how hard is this? You expressed the sentiment that one should protect their ally, through that sentence. It is a well-known rhetorical technique to put things that way, and that they then mean that you are criticising people for doing what you just implied. Ehh....I can't explain this.
Any way: I say again, if that is not what you meant, choose your word more properly.
 
Looks like reforms are in the works.

What do you think? What if the UN could be fixed?

Can it be fixed?

A better UN, for a safer world

Mar 21st 2005
From The Economist Global Agenda


The United Nations’ secretary-general, Kofi Annan, has proposed the most sweeping reforms of the body since its founding in 1945. If approved, these would answer many of the strongest criticisms of the UN and should help rebuild its damaged credibility

IF THERE is one thing on which both critics and supporters of the United Nations agree—especially since the enormous row over the Iraq war—it is that the world body is in need of reform. America and its allies were exasperated at the UN’s failure to agree action against Saddam Hussein’s regime. Opponents of the war were equally angry at the UN’s failure to stop America from launching it. In the run-up to the Iraq invasion, there was the revolting spectacle of Britain and France sucking up to Lansana Conté, the tinpot dictator of tiny Guinea, because the UN’s rules had given him one of the Security Council’s rotating seats. Earlier, there was the equally stomach-churning sight of the tyrannical Libyan regime getting a turn at chairing the UN’s Commission on Human Rights. Then there was the gross embezzlement that has been uncovered in the UN’s $70 billion oil-for-food programme in Iraq—not to mention the UN’s prolonged inaction while the mass slaughter has continued in Sudan’s Darfur region.

Fearing that the UN was sliding into irrelevance, Kofi Annan, its secretary-general, set up an international panel, mainly of former heads of government and ministers, which late last year suggested sweeping reforms (see our profile of Mr Annan). On Monday March 21st, Mr Annan presented his recommendations for change, based on the panel’s conclusions, to a gathering of the UN’s 191-member General Assembly. He is calling for an expansion of the Security Council, so that it better reflects the global realities of today—though he did not specify how the council’s membership and veto rules should be changed. The Commission on Human Rights would, he proposes, be replaced by a smaller human-rights council, on which it would be harder for tyrants to get seats. To avoid repeats of past stalemates, the UN would agree a definition of “terrorism”, which would be incorporated in a new anti-terror treaty. It would also adopt clearer principles on when military force is justified.

Everyone agrees that the Security Council is an unrepresentative relic: five of its 15 seats are occupied by permanent, veto-wielding members (America, Russia, China, Britain and France), while the remaining 186 countries have to take turns occupying the remaining ten seats, and have no veto. Japan and Germany, the second- and third-biggest contributors to the UN budget, believe they are entitled to permanent seats. So do India, the world’s second most populous country, and Brazil, Latin America’s biggest. Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa all argue that Africa merits two permanent seats—and each thinks it deserves one of them. However, each of the leading aspirants to a permanent seat has its opponents (Pakistan opposes India, Mexico opposes Brazil, etc), so years of arguing over reforms to the council’s membership have got nowhere.

Mr Annan’s panel of experts suggested two alternatives, both involving an expanded council of 24 members. The first option would give permanent seats, but no veto, to six countries (none is named but probably Germany, Japan, India, Brazil and two of the three African giants) while creating three extra rotating seats. Under the second option there would be no new permanent members but a new middle tier would be created, whose members would serve for four years and could be immediately re-elected, unlike the current, two-year rotating seats. Mr Annan has urged UN members to adopt either of these options, or failing that something similar.

As for the smaller council that Mr Annan wants to see replace the 53-member Commission on Human Rights, its members would have to be approved by a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly. In an ideal world, membership of this and other important UN bodies would be restricted to democracies. This is far more practicable now than when the UN was founded, since most populous countries are nowadays, to some degree, democratic. However, the one that sticks out like a sore thumb is China—and kicking it out of the UN’s main bodies is unthinkable.

Terrorists to some, freedom fighters to others
A commonly agreed definition of terrorism would make it easier for the UN to agree joint action to curb it. Mr Annan’s panel achieved unanimity on such a definition: any act intended “to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians”. But some Arab UN members, with Palestine in mind, may still demand exemptions for those resisting foreign occupation. America and others might worry that too sweeping a definition risked labelling as terrorism the bombing of military targets hidden in civilian neighbourhoods, as in Iraq.

The Bush administration would like to see the UN Charter tweaked to let countries launch preventive strikes without the Security Council’s permission, even where no attack seems imminent (eg, where a terrorist group is about to acquire nuclear know-how but is not yet able to make a bomb). But Mr Annan and his panel have rejected this idea. Instead, they say the Security Council should agree clearer rules on when it should authorise military action against such “latent” threats. Mr Annan has also called on the UN to embrace the principle that member countries have a “responsibility to protect” civilians suffering atrocities when their own government is failing to act. This has UN-watchers excited, as it would mean moving away from one of the organisation's founding principles, respect for national sovereignty.

These are but a few in the long list of big changes that Mr Annan pressed the UN to adopt on Monday. The aim is for the General Assembly to hold a special summit in September to approve the reform package. A 23-country opinion survey commissioned by the BBC, published on Monday, suggests widespread public support for an overhaul of the UN along the lines Mr Annan is proposing. In every participating country except Russia, a majority supported the expansion of the Security Council. In most countries (even including America), a majority backed making the UN “significantly” more powerful.

Even so, it will be tough to get the two-thirds majority among member countries that Mr Annan’s reforms will need. Even those that ought to command unanimity, such as a drastic shake-out of bureaucracy and corruption in UN bodies, are likely to run up against some governments’ vested interests at some stage. The final report on the oil-for-food scandal, due soon, may so damage Mr Annan and some senior colleagues that the credibility of his reform package is damaged. Now, amid unprecedented consensus about the UN’s shortcomings, the chances of reforming it should be strongest. But it could all too easily descend into the sort of futile squabbling for which the General Assembly has become infamous.
 
Mr Annan’s panel of experts suggested two alternatives, both involving an expanded council of 24 members. The first option would give permanent seats, but no veto, to six countries (none is named but probably Germany, Japan, India, Brazil and two of the three African giants) while creating three extra rotating seats. Under the second option there would be no new permanent members but a new middle tier would be created, whose members would serve for four years and could be immediately re-elected, unlike the current, two-year rotating seats. Mr Annan has urged UN members to adopt either of these options, or failing that something similar.
I'm a bit iffy on the large security counsil, that only means alot more arguements than resolve meaning it would take alot longer than to perform an action. That goes for the two groups as well. They would both bicker at eachother because both disagree.


The Bush administration would like to see the UN Charter tweaked to let countries launch preventive strikes without the Security Council’s permission, even where no attack seems imminent (eg, where a terrorist group is about to acquire nuclear know-how but is not yet able to make a bomb).
I have no idea what Bush admin is trying to pull there, it really doesn't make them look any better to the global eye.

My thought on the UN and the world? The UN, like the USA, is beginning to show it's age through corruption and lack of any real activity. They continue to focus on countries with monetary value of resources and only help some the truly needy ones(ones that i have no defining resource) only because the public noticed and bitch about it until their country solves it.

the real problem with globalization is that we still want to be seperate from everybody. Examples being that we still want our country to be seperate from the rest of the world. to be unquie from all the rest. politicans don't want it for they will profit becuase they have to take care of other areas of the world.

Now, i'm all for democracy but democracy of such a small country is relatively outdated. The world is very tiny now and we need to start getting used to that. Stop dviding the world through nationalism and start concerning about uniting the world as one. feed and help every country evenly without concerna s to what they will give in return. they are no different from us in anyway aside from where they live so why treat them any differently.

However, we have to be strict and decisive on global annoyances:

Constant problem- a war amongst two countries over petty things(IE palestine/Isreal or some of the warring african states)

Answer- Global embargo and political isolation on those two countries until matters are settled equally. This will force them to stop war production from the lack of supplies or cause the civilian population to force their goverment to stop. in a real world reference, Think of it like forcing your two arguing children in their room and telling them that they can't leave the room or have dinner until they settle down and be nice to eachother.
 
Saint_Cadian said:
Answer- Global embargo and political isolation on those two countries until matters are settled equally. This will force them to stop war production from the lack of supplies or cause the civilian population to force their goverment to stop. in a real world reference, Think of it like forcing your two arguing children in their room and telling them that they can't leave the room or have dinner until they settle down and be nice to eachother.

That is not really an answer at all, as the welfare of the civilians would be question if the leaders don't care about them in the first place. Guess who is the first to suffer when shit like that happens? Yes, the civilians, because despots in whatever form or degree would rather make the populace as a whole pay for their mistakes or agenda, and then possibly play the blame game to absolce themselves from any guilt. Or even give bold-faced lies to those who are ordered to provide guard support for the sake of the Vice-President's pocket. Case in point, President War Criminal and Vice-President War Profiteer, in their second incarnations. Imagine what would happen if the US ever got "sanctioned" for going to war. Other countries are going to have the same damn attitude. Sanctions also do little but reinforce those that are supporters of the current regeime, through whatever lies and misinformation the govt. provides.

I would hate to burst some bubbles (well, not really), but the common civvy in many countries does not even have the option to go out and read "the interweb", or do so from behind heavy censoring. Or even afford a computer. Therefore the exchange of news and facts would hardly be as freely available to them, and the leaders can still keep the propaganda flowing.

It is a lofty idea, verging on naive, but "time out" simply will not work when soldiers and civilians can be and already are used and killed for the profit of those in power, with little care as to whom pays for it. Now you're proposing a punishment that will only punish those who are in a position to be further abused, while the fat cats still sit there and eat off of gilt plates and will continue to do so until it affects them on a personal level. It won't be the despot that goes hungry.

Saddam, Osama, Kim Jong, Bush Jr. and Cheney all have given remarkable modern examples of this.
 
Back
Top