http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...20041124/ap_on_re_as/punishing_peacekeepers_1
whats wrong with these people? can we turn their building into condos yet?
whats wrong with these people? can we turn their building into condos yet?
the UN sucks ass
- Thread starter LostInBoston
- Start date
M
Muskydisco
Guest
to bad the un has diplomatic immunity. well at least the news is reporting something bad on the un for once
C
Cherub Rock
Guest
"Jane Holl Lute, Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, warned that the United Nations may even "generate new policies" to crack down on sex abuse. "
and
"Lute said it's possible sex abuses had gotten worse because there are far more peacekeeping missions than there once were. But right now, it must focus on prevention, with its ability to punish so limited.
"It's obvious the measures that we have had in place have not been adequate to deal with the changing circumstances," Lute said. "
Great so they are going to "generate new policies" that they won't enforce and they wonder why this kind of thing happens. If your not even going to get a slap on the wrist then why even listen. I think the UN needs to enforce it's policies instead of sitting on their rear ends and complaining that no one is reading the rules. Where did they find these people???
and
"Lute said it's possible sex abuses had gotten worse because there are far more peacekeeping missions than there once were. But right now, it must focus on prevention, with its ability to punish so limited.
"It's obvious the measures that we have had in place have not been adequate to deal with the changing circumstances," Lute said. "
Great so they are going to "generate new policies" that they won't enforce and they wonder why this kind of thing happens. If your not even going to get a slap on the wrist then why even listen. I think the UN needs to enforce it's policies instead of sitting on their rear ends and complaining that no one is reading the rules. Where did they find these people???
Eric N. said:
Well..don't forget they did say they are trying to get the countries where the offenders are from to punish the people, but the countries refuse to. Unfortuantely the UN doesn't have any teeth, or countries veto alot of what they try to do. It's really a fucked up mess.
"if you want to know what the future looks like ... imagine a boot stomping on a face, forever!" (the jack booted thugs of the UN)
George Orwell, 1984
?WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH?
Welcome to 1984!!!!!!!!
George Orwell, 1984
?WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH?
Welcome to 1984!!!!!!!!
Cherub Rock said:
Na, that would be a waste of natural resources. However, with AIDS, SARS, West Nile, and the host of other germs out there killing people I think that the planet has already started the fight against man kind. It would be bad to scorch all that earth just to get rid of the people and really it's just the people that need to go.. Well, and turning some buildings into mountain size piles of rubble. But, you wouldn't want it all glowing in the dark for a few thousand years though. So Nukes wouldn't be the answer.
antichrist said:
That's why I think that they need to start enforcing the rules on their Peace Keepers.. That's what it was about right? They pay the people, the supply them, they are their employees.. Enforce the rules. If they get out of line then fire them, send in someone to pull them out and throw them into prison. Shit, send a team over there to kill and replace them but, at least do some thing other then send your folks a few more emails with some new rules that no one will ever bother them about following.. The article was about their "peace keepers" doing the crimes. Being able to stop that from happening should be in their controll.
S
syoung
Guest
The UN "peacekeepers" I saw in Africa would sell the UN trucks to the local warlords, who would then take a sawzall to it and cut the back off and mount a 50 cal on it.
Eric N. said:
From the article apparentely it isn't, and the countries won't punish them. I think they should kick them out too, even if they can't string them up, but then it went on to say they have a hard time getting countries to supply peace keepers, and just say fuck you when asked to discipline the people. Unfortunately, the "peacekeepers" are people, and people will be nasty. I don't know which is worse, having a few commiting crimes, and hopefully having more doing the right thing, or not having any at all, and letting situations in countries get even worse.
I guess my point is that, sadly, it's not black and white.
The UN is out of control and they don't care. Their position is that the UN is above everything and everybody.
From
http://www.belmontclub.blogspot.com/
Thursday, November 25, 2004
The United Nations
The air of UN sanctity has in the past been so high that whatever its bureaucracy wanted was ipso facto desirable, a clarion signal for Oxfam to go out and solicit and for 'concerned' individuals swarm out onto the streets and rally for it. But even if the UN is swept off its pedestal it hard to imagine what mechanisms of accountability could be brought to bear on it. The problem was illustrated by the Oil For Food scandal investigations. The Washington Post carried a fascinating riposte from Edward Mortimer, Kofi Annan's Director for Communications, chiding columnist Robert Novak for criticizing the Oil For Food Programme because nothing has been proved and nothing could be proved because no one could be subpoenaed -- even by the UN's own investigators. It was an instance of a bureaucrat unwittingly proving a point he wished to refute.....
..... Mortimer's entire argument may be fairly summarized in four words: 'come and get us'.
From
http://www.belmontclub.blogspot.com/
Thursday, November 25, 2004
The United Nations
The air of UN sanctity has in the past been so high that whatever its bureaucracy wanted was ipso facto desirable, a clarion signal for Oxfam to go out and solicit and for 'concerned' individuals swarm out onto the streets and rally for it. But even if the UN is swept off its pedestal it hard to imagine what mechanisms of accountability could be brought to bear on it. The problem was illustrated by the Oil For Food scandal investigations. The Washington Post carried a fascinating riposte from Edward Mortimer, Kofi Annan's Director for Communications, chiding columnist Robert Novak for criticizing the Oil For Food Programme because nothing has been proved and nothing could be proved because no one could be subpoenaed -- even by the UN's own investigators. It was an instance of a bureaucrat unwittingly proving a point he wished to refute.....
..... Mortimer's entire argument may be fairly summarized in four words: 'come and get us'.
C
Cherub Rock
Guest
MarkP said:
yeah the UN is so out of line. Good thing we're playing police and setting a good example.
Cherub Rock said:
The UN is out of line and we are setting a good example. Question is will the UN be given the boot? Who is going to hold them responsible? It won't be the World Court - why? Because its part of the UN.
Think of it this way, many of the current Middle-East conflicts can be traced back to UN corruption. The current Iraq war would not have been waged if the UN was not on the take. How may US soldiers and civilians have died because of UN corruption? Maybe all the current casualties?
Some good reads on the growing UN Oil-for-Food scandal.
http://www.belmontclub.blogspot.com/
Thursday, December 02, 2004
The Nimitz in UN Service: 1998
The November 1998 issue of Proceedings, the journal of the US Naval Institute is no longer online. However I discovered a cached copy on my hard disk in the process of cleaning it out. One of the articles it contained was the third part of a series of six entitled Five Fleets: Around the World with the Nimitz by Lieutenant Commander William R. Bray, U.S.N. The events of that long-ago blockade on Iraq before the War on Terror took on a fascinating aspect in retrospect. Bray describes how the Nimitz was taking part in a UN sponsored mission to contain Saddam Hussein. One of its tasks was to support a U-2 flight over Iraq that Saddam had threatened to shoot down. The U-2 was an American aircraft assigned to a United Nations mission. What Bray described next was how the French tracked the Nimitz task force almost certainly on behalf of Saddam. .....
.... The United States was being played like a fiddle, its huge fleet and aerial assets led in circles in the sham blockade that we now know was set up by 'friends' on the Security Council who were running a covert rearmament effort called the Oil-for-Food Programme. History may show that Oil-For-Food; the corrupt regime of UN inspections, the AQ Khan nuclear proliferation industry -- and much else -- were all of a piece. Future generations will be astonished, not at how terrible that September day in New York was, but at how lightly the US got off for the folly of the 1990s, escaping not so much through vigilance as sheer good fortune.
And: The Baby Blue Flag
Glenn Reynolds links to an ABC story describing some of the Americans involved in the Oil-for-Food programme. Not just any Americans either.
Dec. 1, 2004 ? Former American fugitive Marc Rich was a middleman for several of Iraq's suspect oil deals in February 2001, just one month after his pardon from President Clinton, according to oil industry shipping records obtained by ABC News. And a U.S. criminal investigation is looking into whether Rich, as well as several other prominent oil traders, made illegal payments to Iraq in order to obtain the lucrative oil contracts.
And: Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Money for Blood
Senator Norm Coleman has called for the resignation of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan for his role in the maladministration of the U.N. Oil-for-Food program. Coleman, who chairs the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and a member of the Foreign Relations Committee charges that Annan allowed the Oil-for-Food program to become a covert program for subverting the very sanctions they were intended to enforce......
Coleman hints, but does not wholly pursue the idea that the Oil-for-Food program tacticly served the agenda of some "permanent members" of the Security Council. That in turn suggests that the Gulf War and subsequent events, far from being a purely bilateral struggle between the United States and Saddam's regime, was really the nexus of a great power struggle involving France, Russia and the US. French policy in the Security Council prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom; their determined efforts to prevent the 4th ID from deploying through Turkey and its hostile attitude toward the Allawie government hints that the real bone of contention with Paris was not over how to topple Saddam but whether or not to keep him there.
France wanted to keep Saddam there to keep the money flowing. And geesh - Marc Rich's name rears its head again, from what was suppose to be the most ethical US administration we had. It's just beginning folks.