UN: Saddam Shipped WMD Before War

mike2h

you seem to think that the un is 'just' member countries. that is very far from the truth. they(un) are also a collection of organisations overseen & under the mandate of the un.
the oil-for- food program is a prime example of this. it was farmed out to various other groups but each of these 'groups' had a un emploee/appointee overseeing them. it is these peolple & other INDIVIDUALS of the un that are being investgated for graft/corruption. not the un as a whole.
the problem is, the un as a whole SEEMS to be covering for them. now i have no idea whether the un is just trying to clean in house or if they are actually trying to do a cover up(some of the people involved are related or freinds of high un officials.)

raid517

The UN certainly has several subsidiary roles - but as I pointed out they are in no sense 'executive roles'. This is an important distinction - because what it means is that while these organizations are mandated to act on behalf of member states - they have extremely limited powers in what they can an cannot tell other member states to do. There are a number of offices, like the World Health organization, the UN Security council and so on - including those offices that govern such matters as aid distribution and the Oil for food program and other similar such initiatives - but again these are in no sense an executive branch of some extra national government. They are simply non executive offices staffed by bureaucrats whose sole function is to implement the decisions and agreements that are reached by the UN. (The term Non Government Organsiations is no accident either, NGO's serve purely as a means of executing the collective decisions made by individual governments - but they have no direct governing powers of their own. They exist purely to impliment policy - they have no direct powers to make policy). Now if you are saying there is evidence that individual members off the office responsible for administering the oil for food program behaved innapropriately, then from what I can tell there is indeed an investigation. But from what I can see too it very much is a case of two countries in particular carrying on in 'business as usual' - which although regrettable, given the long standing nature these countries have had with Iraq and the levels of financial commitment involved - it may not be entirely surprising.

The problem here is that you are making the somewhat arrogant assumption that the US is in any direct position to judge on these matters, which as I said, given your past and current penchant for propping up and pumping cash into various repressive dictatorships - you may well not be.

The question you have to ask is why does it only become wrong when it is other countries who do it?

However there is an investigation - which on the whole is a good thing. So on the basis of presuming innocence until guilt is proven, let's wait and see what the final report has to say.

Even if the entire UN was corrupt (which I think by your standard would mean that the US was corrupt too) which I doubt very much it is - it is still better that countries have a place where they can come and make the best effort they can to work out their differences.

A world in which no one talked and where everyone just went about the world doing whatever the hell they pleased without consulting anyone else, would be a very dangerous place indeed.

Even if the UN is just a talking shop - thank god that we have it. Because they day we stop talking is the day the fate of this planet will finally be sealed.

GJ

Spader

Just like the Us government then.

Spader

Spader

It means that if there arec accusations of corruption against the Un and then these accusations get investgated....then that is more than what you arew usuallyy offered today by major governments of the world accused of the same thing.

Instead you get endless campaigns of furtermore lies meant to cover up for the previous ones.

Spader

mike2h

& you beleive every other country in the world is'nt the same?
& before one of you bozos even start, that is NOT a justification. just a fact of life. pretty much has been for most of recorded history. politics should be a very bad word & calling someone a politician should be an insult. i realise this is not ture of every politician in the world but imo holds true for the majority.
great statesmen who serve their countries & humanity unselfishly have been a rare breed. unfortunatley they seem to becoming even rarer.

Spader

Before we go on............

What is a .."bozo"

Are you a bozo?

Spader

raid517

@mike2h be warned, this is not the place for name calling. If you want to resort to name calling please extract yourself to the DH flame warzone, where all such comments belong.

GJ

mike2h

sometimes.
spader, that was not directed at you specifically. there are people running around here that like to make massive assumptions anout what they think the a person means or is thinking. just trying to head that off. gets kinda old.

raid517

Read my post.

GJ

mike2h

i did. you obviously misread mine, or i did not make myself clear in what i was saying. either way, end of dicussion.
or are you referring to your attempt at moderating?
best leave that to the people that are supposed to do it.

Spader

I still want to know what the expression bozo means.


Spader

raid517

No I'm not a moderator. But keep calling people names on this forum and I will happily report you to a moderator.

It's your choice.

GJ

mike2h

bozo = a clown as in bozo the clown
i would have removed it because it probably was a poor choice, but i have been convinced otherwise by other responses.

mike2h

do whatever you feel you have to do. but please stop instructing me.

Spader

Clown?

Well that was a pointless argument.

Spader

mike2h

that would be my take.

raid517

Well a bad attitude as well as a bad mouth will win you no friends around here.

No one else is allowed to get away with calling other members names, why should you be an exception?

If you can't debate without resorting to common insults, then perhaps it is possible your posts don't belong here?

I am not instructing you. If you read the forum rules you will note there too that name calling is not tollerated here.

It seems a simple enough premise to grasp.

Debate the topics - don't insult other posters. Why should you have a problem with that?

GJ

Spader

"That would be my take on it"

Which mean´s he insist on it or what?

Spader

mike2h

well that killed whtever it was we were talking about. later.

Roadee

Is there a problem in here? I didn't notice anyone reporting a post



But anyway.....the topic of discussion is about Saddam shipping his WMD or remnets of......to other countries......before, during, and after the war. This is old news really. The whole world knew it was happening....before the war. But there were still plenty of rockets and missiles to be found all over Iraq....they just didn't have any WMD in them. But the weapons to deliver such substances were plentiful......whether they were shown by the press or not. No biggie. I remember when I was there.....we would pull into a new area and start dozing trenches for cover and places to take a dump and we would end up digging up a crap load of weapons........the whole desert is full of buried weapons. They are finding them dailly......by accident and by people telling them to look in certain places.


But some people will never be convinced of this. I can post pictures all day long of missiles and other things.....that were taken by people I personally know....that are in Iraq now, or have just gotten back......but it wouldn't make much of a difference.

To each there own.........I guess

Spader

Old news?

Why then havent the Us government presented any evidence of such export?And im not talking of export of metal scrap.Im talking of WMD´s.

Nowhere has such evidence been presented.There has been constant speculation nothing else.

The absolute known majority of all WMD´s in Iraq were dismantled by the UN weaponinspections.

This...is what all with any kind of insight claim today and it goes even for Powell who stood up as a man and said..."we were wrong and the evidence i presented in the UN to justify an immidiet invasion was crap (he even said it was falsified but not by who).The WMD argument wasnt waterproof.Funny that so few refuse to accept even their own governments take on the issue and grip for almost anything tp defend a standpoint that is of no value anymore.


Spader

kp59583

Desperate Measures to Overcome U.N. Failure
By Marshall Manson
June 24, 2004

A new book by three experienced United Nations staffers provides an unusual and candid look at the incompetence and corruption that has plagued the organization's peacekeeping efforts over the last twelve years.

"Emergency Sex and Other Desperate Measures" is co-authored by three veterans of U.N. operations: Kenneth Cain, Heidi Postlewait, and Andrew Thomson.

The powerfully written book chiefly describes their individual journeys from their first days with the U.N. to the present. The book is a searingly open and honest account of their lives and the evolution of their views and values as they travel from one foreign mission to the next. The authors, individually and as a group, come to the U.N. full of idealism, believing that they can promote peace, advance democracy and make a difference for large populations of people through the world body's work.

Each is committed, dedicated and hard-working. But as their journey continues, each becomes increasingly disenchanted with the U.N. and acutely aware of its failings. They experience firsthand that, in most cases, U.N. efforts to keep the peace or promote democracy fail, either by incompetence or cowardice, and that these failures often result in thousands of deaths.

There is little question that each of the three authors is motivated by an admirable desire to do good, and that each succeeds in their individual pursuits. But the graphic stories of their experiences in Cambodia, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti and Bosnia are wrenching.

In Somalia, Cain is caught in a Somali attack on a U.N. ceremony celebrating the U.N.-sponsored reopening of the Somali courts. Unfortunately, during the attack, many of the judges are killed or driven off, and Cain learns that his U.N. boss pushed for the provocative reopening of the courts so that he could collect 15 percent of the judges' salaries for himself.

Stories like those permeate the authors' U.N. experiences. In another episode, Cain relates that while in Rwanda, the chief administrative officer (CAO) of the U.N. mission is replaced for requiring a 15 percent kickback on everything the U.N. purchased. However, when the replacement CAO arrives, he quickly institutes the same kickback requirement.

In Haiti, Cain recounts how the Aristide government, after being restored to power by U.S. and U.N. intervention, invented election results and announced them with the U.N.'s blessing. Cain "watched all the ballots burn before anyone had counted them; they were still bound in boxes." Nevertheless, Cain's memo to U.N. headquarters detailing the election fraud was dismissed because he had transmitted it without his boss's signature.

In Rwanda, Thomson is responsible for the forensic investigation of several mass graves. He vividly describes how many of the perpetrators of the genocide have simply moved across the border into Zaire and have begun working for the unwitting U.N. in refugee camps.

But financial mismanagement and political corruption are merely the tip of the iceberg. Even more horrific stories are commonplace.

In Liberia, the U.N. has refused to deploy its own peacekeeping force and is instead relying on peacekeeping troops from nearby nations, notably Nigeria and Ghana, under U.N. supervision. Cain describes how Nigerian troops begin "seducing" young girls from a nearby refugee camp with rice and money. After a time, a Ghanaian contingent moves in nearby. The Ghanaians are "more gentle and generous with the girls... So the girls started frequenting the Ghanaian camp more than the Nigerian. One day dead little girls started appearing on the path from the displaced persons camp to the Ghanaian camp - but not on the path to the Nigerians... In the opinion of the investigating officer, this was a message to the girls from the Nigerians that it wouldn't be worth it to frequent the Ghanaians for the sake of a little extra rice. And these are the peacekeepers."

Cain, Thomas, and Postlewait save their most severe criticism for the U.N.'s cowardice in preventing genocide and humanitarian disaster before it occurs. In Rwanda, where 800,000 were killed, the U.N. had a peacekeeping force of 2,500 troops in place before the genocide began. The U.N. ground commander, Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, "sent a fax detailing the imminent genocide" to U.N. headquarters. "Kofi Annan, [then] head of U.N. Peacekeeping, ordered him to stand down and do nothing." Ultimately, the general and his force were withdrawn, but the authors (and many others) believe this relatively small but well-armed force could have halted the genocide before it began. The authors present similar stories about Haiti, Bosnia and Liberia.

Each of these tales and others in the book reflects an organization beset by corruption and incompetence, that appears incapable of performing its most basic mission: preserving peace.

It is clear by the end of the book that the authors understand this, too. Cain, disenchanted, has left the U.N. for a foreign policy think tank. Despite the world body's systemic problems, the other two authors remain with the U.N. And this, perhaps, reflects the dedication and good-heartedness of the authors better than anything else. They recognize that the U.N. will almost never succeed in its missions, but lacking any alternative, Thomson and Postlewait use it as a means to an end - a chance to get into the field, help people and make a difference.

Perhaps that is the important point of all: the U.N.'s utter failure in nearly all that it has attempted - not to mention its little success, in spite of itself - has confirmed what many have long understood. There are no massive, utopian solutions, certainly not in the hands of a dysfunctional bureaucratic institution that cannot even manage itself. The only way to really make a difference is one person at a time

Spader

Qoute

"In Somalia, Cain is caught in a Somali attack on a U.N. ceremony celebrating the U.N.-sponsored reopening of the Somali courts. Unfortunately, during the attack, many of the judges are killed or driven off, and Cain learns that his U.N. boss pushed for the provocative reopening of the courts so that he could collect 15 percent of the judges' salaries for himself."


His UN boss? What exactly does that mean?His UN boss in New York or a local moron?



Qoute

Stories like those permeate the authors' U.N. experiences. In another episode, Cain relates that while in Rwanda, the chief administrative officer (CAO) of the U.N. mission is replaced for requiring a 15 percent kickback on everything the U.N. purchased. However, when the replacement CAO arrives, he quickly institutes the same kickback requirement.



Same question again.................



Qoute

"In Liberia, the U.N. has refused to deploy its own peacekeeping force and is instead relying on peacekeeping troops from nearby nations, notably Nigeria and Ghana, under U.N. supervision. Cain describes how Nigerian troops begin "seducing" young girls from a nearby refugee camp with rice and money. After a time, a Ghanaian contingent moves in nearby. The Ghanaians are "more gentle and generous with the girls... So the girls started frequenting the Ghanaian camp more than the Nigerian. One day dead little girls started appearing on the path from the displaced persons camp to the Ghanaian camp - but not on the path to the Nigerians... In the opinion of the investigating officer, this was a message to the girls from the Nigerians that it wouldn't be worth it to frequent the Ghanaians for the sake of a little extra rice. And these are the peacekeepers."


In what way exactly does this interfere with the IDEA of an international peaceforce?I mean...Usa isnt capable themselves of acting according to human rights and with moral at all times.Are you suggesting that because one member nations soldiers acts like pigs then that is reason enough to dismiss the UN ?
What is the alternartive? Sending Us soldiers EVERYWHERE?

Well that isnt gonna happen.You did not send one single man to Rwanda and the reason is ..there wasnt any money to be made or any strategic interests to preserve so...you have to do with morally corrupt idiots at times"



Qoute

"Cain, Thomas, and Postlewait save their most severe criticism for the U.N.'s cowardice in preventing genocide and humanitarian disaster before it occurs. In Rwanda, where 800,000 were killed, the U.N. had a peacekeeping force of 2,500 troops in place before the genocide began. The U.N. ground commander, Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, "sent a fax detailing the imminent genocide" to U.N. headquarters. "Kofi Annan, [then] head of U.N. Peacekeeping, ordered him to stand down and do nothing." Ultimately, the general and his force were withdrawn, but the authors (and many others) believe this relatively small but well-armed force could have halted the genocide before it began. The authors present similar stories about Haiti, Bosnia and Liberia."




Yeah...the old Rwanda argument which echoes so utterly false when sung by republican americans which these three undoubtedly are.

You can tell the three wise men this:

In order for the UN to send soldiers ANYWHERE there must be a resolutiuon written by a nation asking for such action.The UN IS NOT A NATION WITH AN ARMY OF THEIR OWN that they can send where ever at any time.

No nation in the security council asked for such action.

The militarilly and economically MOST POWERFUL nation in the world didnt either.Not one word came from that direction.

Ok?

Threy could have initiated something...but they didnt.

They also claim that 2500 men could have stopped this.

That is a ridiculous assumption.Totally ridiculous and only meant to liberate Usa from moral blame for not having acted AT ALL to propose the sending of more troop.


Qoute

"Perhaps that is the important point of all: the U.N.'s utter failure in nearly all that it has attempted - not to mention its little success, in spite of itself - has confirmed what many have long understood. There are no massive, utopian solutions, certainly not in the hands of a dysfunctional bureaucratic institution that cannot even manage itself. The only way to really make a difference is one person at a time"


This is a direct and obvioius lie not worth commenting.


Spader