Will the UN grow a pair?

WildCat said:
Translation: Oops, my case is weak. Better try to change the subject to Hiroshima.

No, I mentioned the A-bomb from the start, you dodged it.

The bombing was designed to weaken the morale of the population. It was a city, so you can come up with any number of reasons to justify bombing it, but in the overall scheme of the war at that stage, Germany was gone either way.

The paradox that mosts terrorist seem to fail to realise is that terrorism just as often will strengthen the will to fight back. Just look at Israel and Palestine, 60 years later and still going strong.
 
As far as Kofi goes, seems the minute he grew some balls and declared the war illegal things have gotten real bad for him.

('My Son, My Son'
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/29/opinion/29safire.html)


Still, it`s hard to feel sympathy for the man. Kofi Annan is the worst, most subserviant U.N general secretary ever (with the exception of Kurt Waldhaim).
He presided over two (how can we say this..."controversial"?)wars and his only reaction to both was to mumble a few dissaproving words concerning the latest and ongoing one. He deserves all he gets from his masters.

However, put into office by the US purely to be its man, there is a little more to his current villification than meets the eye I think.
The US needs to make much of the oil-for-food "scandal" because it wants to denigrate UN sanctions - not so much as a justification for its actions in Iraq but for what it may be contemplating doing in Iran. The UN might prove useful for imposing sanctions on Iran but they would be truly draconian - the US would point to the loopholes Saddam exploited and to the alleged corruption of UN officials - it would no doubt insist that US officials should oversee UN staff or even dispense with them altogether. This is why, I suspect, Safire and others linked to the neocons (Claudia Rosette, the reporter Safire praises is one of William Kristol's editorial staff on his necon rags, the Daily and Weekly Standard), are keeping the oil-for-food allegations alive.
 
demon said:
As far as Kofi goes, seems the minute he grew some balls and declared the war illegal things have gotten real bad for him.


...The US needs to make much of the oil-for-food "scandal" because it wants to denigrate UN sanctions - not so much as a justification for its actions in Iraq but for what it may be contemplating doing in Iran.
So in your view the billions of dollars in bribes and blood money paid to security council members to undermine UN sanctions is no big deal? Why do you have "scandal" in quotes?
 
Wildcat:
"So in your view the billions of dollars in bribes and blood money paid to security council members to undermine UN sanctions is no big deal? Why do you have "scandal" in quotes?"

A big deal? Well, that remains to be seen doesn`t it or are you prejudging the conclusion of the investigations?
That`s why I have "scandal" in quotes...the same way I put "sovereignty" and "elections" and "coalition" in quotes when I refer to Iraq.

I've no doubt the Iraqi regime ran all sorts of scams - but whatever they managed to siphon off divided by Iraq's population spread over the 7 years of the programme works out at pretty small potatoes. The idea that if Saddam had ploughed all this illegal money into the OFF programme, Iraq could have returned to being a prosperous country is just nonsense (not that I`m suggesting that you are suggesting that).
 
Re: Re: Will the UN grow a pair?

toddjh said:
The problem is, is that really true? You could make a very good case that the U.S. bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were technically terrorism

You can try, but you will convince only yourself and if you think that WWII is comparable to fighting terrorism today, you must have been born yesterday.
 
demon said:
idea that if Saddam had ploughed all this illegal money into the OFF programme, Iraq could have returned to being a prosperous country is just nonsense (not that I`m suggesting that you are suggesting that).
The idea is that Saddam was using OFF to bribe key countries in the UN Security Council to end the sanctions so that he could resume his WMD programs. Yes, it's a big deal. And the UN under Annan is covering it up, which is why it's taking a Congressional investigation to unravel it.
 
Wildcat:
"The idea is that Saddam was using OFF to bribe key countries in the UN Security Council to end the sanctions so that he could resume his WMD programs."

I think this is a fairly new myth that is emerging...it runs alongside the new narratve that says that the sanctions in the last few years were being eroded. This is just not true. In actual fact, they were toughened after 9/11.
The US made it pretty clear too that so long as Saddam remained, sanctions would remain and they had the power to make it so too. Hardly any incentive for Saddam to play by the rules when no one else was.
Of course, the fact that Saddam had disarmed early on in the 90`s (plenty of informed people were saying this too, they were derided and ignored as they were in the run up to war), and that sanctions should therefore have been lifted anyway is never discussed.
 
demon said:
I think this is a fairly new myth that is emerging...it runs alongside the new narratve that says that the sanctions in the last few years were being eroded. This is just not true. In actual fact, they were toughened after 9/11.
The US made it pretty clear too that so long as Saddam remained, sanctions would remain and they had the power to make it so too. Hardly any incentive for Saddam to play by the rules when no one else was.
Of course, the fact that Saddam had disarmed early on in the 90`s (plenty of informed people were saying this too, they were derided and ignored as they were in the run up to war), and that sanctions should therefore have been lifted anyway is never discussed.
From a letter in today's Wall Street Journal by Sen. Norm Coleman:

Our Investigative Subcommittee has gathered overwhelming evidence that Saddam turned this program on its head. Rather than erode his grip on power, the program was manipulated by Saddam to line his own pockets and actually strengthen his position at the expense of the Iraqi people. At our hearing on Nov. 15, we presented evidence that Saddam accumulated more than $21 billion through abuses of the Oil-for-Food program and U.N. sanctions. We continue to amass evidence that he used the overt support of prominent members of the U.N., such as France and Russia, along with numerous foreign officials, companies and possibly even senior U.N. officials, to exploit the program to his advantage. We have obtained evidence that indicates that Saddam doled out lucrative oil allotments to foreign officials, sympathetic journalists and even one senior U.N. official, in order to undermine international support for sanctions. In addition, we are gathering evidence that Saddam gave hundreds of thousands -- maybe even millions -- of Oil-for-Food dollars to terrorists and terrorist organizations. All of this occurred under the supposedly vigilant eye of the U.N.

...Since it was never likely that the U.N. Security Council, some of whose permanent members were awash in Saddam's favors, would ever call for Saddam's removal, the U.S. and its coalition partners were forced to put troops in harm's way to oust him by force. Today, money swindled from Oil-for-Food may be funding the insurgency against coalition troops in Iraq and other terrorist activities against U.S. interests. Simply put, the troops would probably not have been placed in such danger if the U.N. had done its job in administering sanctions and Oil-for-Food.

...As a former prosecutor, I believe in the presumption of innocence. Such revelations, however, cast a dark cloud over Mr. Annan's ability to address the U.N.'s quagmire. Mr. Annan has named the esteemed Paul Volcker to investigate Oil-for-Food-related allegations, but the latter's team is severely hamstrung in its efforts. His panel has no authority to compel the production of documents or testimony from anyone outside the U.N. Nor does it possess the power to punish those who fabricate information, alter evidence or omit material facts. It must rely entirely on the goodwill of the very people and entities it is investigating. We must also recognize that Mr. Volcker's effort is wholly funded by the U.N., at Mr. Annan's control. Moreover, Mr. Volcker must issue his final report directly to the secretary general, who will then decide what, if anything, is released to the public.
Ah, the wonderful UN under Annan! Fraud, scandal, and coverup requiring the blood of coalition troops to correct. IMHO, the US shouldn't give the UN one more dime until Annan resigns or is removed and a full accounting takes place of what went on w/ the OFF scandal.

This isn't going away, demon. It gets more massive by the day, the more you attempt to dismiss it the more foolish you appear.
 
Re: Re: Re: Will the UN grow a pair?

Elind said:
You can try, but you will convince only yourself and if you think that WWII is comparable to fighting terrorism today, you must have been born yesterday.

Hitler was a much more real threat the world than Osama, IMHO. The point is, the western countries have resorted to the use of terror when they belive it is justified.

More recently, do the words "Shock and awe" sound familiar. Makes me think 'terror lite'.
 
I`m not dismissing it Wildcat.
However, don`t expect me to take a Congressional investigation into Saddam`s crimes seriously. Why should I? Why should anyone take anything seriously that comes out of Congress about Saddam or Iraq?
If you think that`s unreasonable of me then so be it.

edited to add:
I tell you what would go a long way to exposing a lot of this stuff...a proper trial for Saddam.
When is that going to happen? Can it be allowed to happen?
 
demon said:
I`m not dismissing it Wildcat.
However, don`t expect me to take a Congressional investigation into Saddam`s crimes seriously. Why should I? Why should anyone take anything seriously that comes out of Congress about Saddam or Iraq?
If you think that`s unreasonable of me then so be it.
Looks like the Congressional investigation is all you'll get, I'm afraid. The UN does not seem too serious about investigating itself.

edited to add:
I tell you what would go a long way to exposing a lot of this stuff...a proper trial for Saddam.
When is that going to happen? Can it be allowed to happen?
It will happen, after Iraq has it's own elected gov't in place and a Constitution. But, somehow I think the OFF scandal is low priority on their list of grievances. There's that whole genocide thing first.
 
Wildcat:
"Looks like the Congressional investigation is all you'll get, I'm afraid. The UN does not seem too serious about investigating itself."

I don`t disagree with that. I`m no fan of the UN or Annan. Not at all.

A trial is the way to go though I think. Properly organized I think it would reveal the whole can of worms...who knows what might come out?
Haven`t heard any news on the prospect of a trial for ages now...you?
 
The very premise of this thread is falacious.

The UN is not a distinct entity apart from its member states (particularly the 5 permanent members of the security council), in regards to the issues being discussed here. The policy of the UN is a reflection of the compromises reached among the 5 permanent members. Annan was hired at the behest of the 5 permanent members, and so will be his successor.

If you have a complaint about the UN, your complaint is about the policies of the governments of The US, France, Russia, The UK, and China, and their ability to come to a collective will on the issue of terrorism.

The UN won't grow a pair because its entire corpus is an illusion.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Will the UN grow a pair?

a_unique_person said:
Hitler was a much more real threat the world than Osama, IMHO. The point is, the western countries have resorted to the use of terror when they belive it is justified.

More recently, do the words "Shock and awe" sound familiar. Makes me think 'terror lite'.
Yes, if you define terrorism as acts intended to demoralize the opponent, there are many examples on all sides. However, no examples I'm aware of where the US, UK, or allies intentionally avoided attacking military targets with the intent of killing civilians instead for the purpose of demoralizing the enemy. To me, at least, this is an important destinction. (I'm not arguing that targeting military assets necessarily absolves one of responsibility for civilian deaths.)
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will the UN grow a pair?

Michael Redman said:
Yes, if you define terrorism as acts intended to demoralize the opponent, there are many examples on all sides. However, no examples I'm aware of where the US, UK, or allies intentionally avoided attacking military targets with the intent of killing civilians instead for the purpose of demoralizing the enemy. To me, at least, this is an important destinction. (I'm not arguing that targeting military assets necessarily absolves one of responsibility for civilian deaths.)

Agreed; but all those who call any unwanted deaths in war as "terrorism" are apologists for the real terrorists and redefine the language to suit their position (like Creationists and "theory", or how some here use "racist").

They should just call themselves Pacifists and be done with it; while riding the backs of those prepared to fight for their liberties.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will the UN grow a pair?

Elind said:
Agreed; but all those who call any unwanted deaths in war as "terrorism" are apologists for the real terrorists and redefine the language to suit their position (like Creationists and "theory", or how some here use "racist").

They should just call themselves Pacifists and be done with it; while riding the backs of those prepared to fight for their liberties.

I think the deaths in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were most definitely 'wanted'. I think wars are sometimes necessary, but only as a last resort.
 
IMHO the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the only possible weapons the US could use to prevent the invasion of Japan by the Russians and likely saved the Japanese state.
 
Good dissection of the oil-for-food "scandal":

quote:
Knives out for Kofi Annan
By RAMESH THAKUR
Special to The Japan Times

One would think that the cheerleaders for waging war on Saddam Hussein's Iraq, on the thoroughly discredited grounds that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, would have retreated into a period of quiet introspection. In fact, it is as difficult to find any trace of embarrassment, humility or repentance as it has been to find a trace of the supposedly ubiquitous and deadly WMD in Iraq. Instead many of the columnists and newspapers that clearly believe that attack is the best form of defense have gone on the offensive against the United Nations and Secretary General Kofi Annan.

And when Annan dared to suggest that the war had been illegal, and cautioned against a major military offensive in Fallujah because of the heightened risk of civilian casualties, the Wall Street Journal in an editorial described the secretary general's letter as "a hostile act" (Nov. 8).

The fiercest attack on the U.N. has concentrated on the oil-for-food scandal. Thus William Safire, writing in his New York Times column on Nov. 15, accused Annan of "stonewalling" and "obstruction of justice."

Safire wrote of "the secretary general's manipulative abuse of Paul Volcker," who cannot see how his integrity "is being shredded by a web of sticky-fingered officials and see-no-evil bureaucrats desperate to protect the man on top who hired (Volcker) to substitute for, and thereby to abort, a prompt and truly independent investigation."

So just what is this oil-for-food scandal? In fact, two separate scandals have been rolled into one: smuggling and bill padding........

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?eo20041204a1.htm
 
bobdroege7 said:
IMHO the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the only possible weapons the US could use to prevent the invasion of Japan by the Russians and likely saved the Japanese state.

I must have missed something here. Russia did take control of the nothernmost islands in Japan, but I do not believe that an invasion of mainland Japan by Russia was ever a likelyhood. I don't think they had the resources in the first place, and the Pacific was controlled by the US then.

The standard rationalization was to avoid a full scale invasion by the US and the even greater loss of lives on both sides that that would have entailed.

Please elaborate your assertion.
 

Back
Top Bottom