Political Crossfire Forums

[Republitarian]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142689,00.html
Quote: UNITED NATIONS — The head of an independent investigation into alleged corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program said most of the money illegally obtained by Saddam Hussein (search) came from smuggling, much of which the U.N. Security Council knew about but didn't stop.

...

Tell me again why we care about the UN Security Council or the UN as a whole?

It is like a prosecutor not pressing charges because he is being paid off.

[res ipsa]

Republitarian wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142689,00.html
Quote: UNITED NATIONS — The head of an independent investigation into alleged corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program said most of the money illegally obtained by Saddam Hussein (search) came from smuggling, much of which the U.N. Security Council knew about but didn't stop.

...

Tell me again why we care about the UN Security Council or the UN as a whole?

It is like a prosecutor not pressing charges because he is being paid off.

The U.N.'s sole purpose, didnt you know, is not to work things out but to act a quasi superpower in opposition to the U.S. What's worse is that the U.S. actually funds the vast majority of its existence.

[Eonve]

res ipsa wrote: Republitarian wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142689,00.html
Quote: UNITED NATIONS — The head of an independent investigation into alleged corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program said most of the money illegally obtained by Saddam Hussein (search) came from smuggling, much of which the U.N. Security Council knew about but didn't stop.

...

Tell me again why we care about the UN Security Council or the UN as a whole?

It is like a prosecutor not pressing charges because he is being paid off.

The U.N.'s sole purpose, didnt you know, is not to work things out but to act a quasi superpower in opposition to the U.S. What's worse is that the U.S. actually funds the vast majority of its existence.

bulls**t.

[res ipsa]

Eonve wrote: res ipsa wrote: Republitarian wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142689,00.html
Quote: UNITED NATIONS — The head of an independent investigation into alleged corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program said most of the money illegally obtained by Saddam Hussein (search) came from smuggling, much of which the U.N. Security Council knew about but didn't stop.

...

Tell me again why we care about the UN Security Council or the UN as a whole?

It is like a prosecutor not pressing charges because he is being paid off.

The U.N.'s sole purpose, didnt you know, is not to work things out but to act a quasi superpower in opposition to the U.S. What's worse is that the U.S. actually funds the vast majority of its existence.

bulls**t.

What is the BS?

[Eonve]

Quote: Quote: res ipsa wrote:

The U.N.'s sole purpose, didnt you know, is not to work things out but to act a quasi superpower in opposition to the U.S. What's worse is that the U.S. actually funds the vast majority of its existence.

bulls**t.

What is the BS?

that which you have said. you have no idea what UN is and what its functions are. you obviously are unaware of the history of international institutions for the last 60 or so years. what you said is wrong and incompetent. but for the brevity's sake i summarized it with the only one word - bulls**t.

[DEFCON 1]

What he said is 100% right and he could have added the ever expanding scandal.

[res ipsa]

My Dear Cardinal:
I am indeed quite aware of the stated objectives in its charter and its theoretical purposes which were probably reality during the cold war. I submit that you are unaware of its practical effect since the end of the cold war. We both can agree that the U.S. is its largest contributor from financial and physical plant standpoint?

[Eonve]

res ipsa wrote: My Dear Cardinal:
I am indeed quite aware of the stated objectives in its charter and its theoretical purposes which were probably reality during the cold war. I submit that you are unaware of its practical effect since the end of the cold war. We both can agree that the U.S. is its largest contributor from financial and physical plant standpoint?

US is the biggest contributor indeed. the practical effect since the end of cold war was that UN has approved five out of six US military operation and has not really condemned the sixth one. but once UN did something that was not in line with the US interests, all the US concervatives started calling for its abolition. i do not find it to be a proper way to address concerns, even if they were well-grounded and legitimate.

[res ipsa]

Ok...now we're talking. I think there has indeed been condemnation of the 6th military operation. The preceeding 5 everyone, to some extent however minimal, joined in or at least enjoyed the benefits/outcome of them.

Mr. Anan and Mr. Chirac, since the demise of the cold war, have unarguably gone out of their way to oppose if not undermine the U.S. at the U.N. The U.S. gets continually hammered at any meetings or during socalled debates. Now w/ the tragedy in Sri Lanka, the fellow from the Netherlands starts yapping one day after. The U.S. will help w/ transport, funds, supplies, etc and probably Marines to help clean up. The U.N. can hate and oppose Bush all it wants but the fact is that the U.N. needs the U.S. and vice-versa. It might help things go smoother if Chirac built his country or the EU into the superpower he wants it to be rather than "pimp" Anan and the U.N. into a mechanism to browbeat and/or undermine the U.S. Scandals come and go; that's what politicians do. But the hypocrisy lately from the U.N. about Iraq makes one think that all the opposition to Bush's ouster of Saddam was not about protecting Iraqis but about keeping a cash cow alive.

Happy New.

[Eonve]

res ipsa wrote: Ok...now we're talking. I think there has indeed been condemnation of the 6th military operation. The preceeding 5 everyone, to some extent however minimal, joined in or at least enjoyed the benefits/outcome of them.

Mr. Anan and Mr. Chirac, since the demise of the cold war, have unarguably gone out of their way to oppose if not undermine the U.S. at the U.N. The U.S. gets continually hammered at any meetings or during socalled debates. Now w/ the tragedy in Sri Lanka, the fellow from the Netherlands starts yapping one day after. The U.S. will help w/ transport, funds, supplies, etc and probably Marines to help clean up. The U.N. can hate and oppose Bush all it wants but the fact is that the U.N. needs the U.S. and vice-versa. It might help things go smoother if Chirac built his country or the EU into the superpower he wants it to be rather than "pimp" Anan and the U.N. into a mechanism to browbeat and/or undermine the U.S. Scandals come and go; that's what politicians do. But the hypocrisy lately from the U.N. about Iraq makes one think that all the opposition to Bush's ouster of Saddam was not about protecting Iraqis but about keeping a cash cow alive.

Happy New.

ok. listen up. can you come up with at least one way UN (or France through UN) can seriously undermine US? i am not even asking for any evidence or proof for your outrageous claims. i know that this is useless to ask of people like you. just give me at least one credible, logically unflawed, politically feasible theory of how UN (or France) seriously undermined US since the end of the Cold War?

[res ipsa]

For example, where was the U.N. in the aftermath of the ouster of Saddam. Any "blue" soldiers helping? Any steps taken by the U.N. to protect its people when they were there after the fall? In fact, despite heads up by the U.S. that its folks were vulnerable, cup of Kofi refused U.S. offers of security. Hey look, I am not arguing that your view of Dub is right or wrong; think what you want about that. But the planet has a problem there and where is everyone? It seems the Kofi and the Jacques would rather sit on the sidelines and smirk as opposed to doing anything constructive to help. Yes, they have a smattering of election folks there (brave souls indeed) but where is the back up? Or is the solution of the entire mid east the destruction of what others in here have called the "outlaw Zionist regime"?

So, it seems that when Bush went back and got another resolution (as everyone wanted), it was meaningless, and now that the circs are what they, where is the U.N. who claim that they were concerned about the Iraqi people?

Give me an example about how the U.N. has supported the U.S. since the cold war ended?

[johnlocke]

That's the thing. The U.N. has never supported the U.S. as you stated earlier. To be honest, the U.N. hasn't really supported anyone except those who DON'T want to do anything. I mean we still have nothing done in Darfur. And to be honest, Darfur should be a wake-up call to Mr. Annan. I believe Rwanda, 1994, and the number 800,000 should ring a bell to him. The UN did nothing to oust Hussein. They allowed North Korea to kick inspectors out. His own son was involved in the oil for food scandal. Tell me, does it seem like Mr. Annan has really done a lot of good in the past 11 years?