UN funded terrorism

B

Blue Blaa

Guest
I guess this won't make the nightly news though:

[broken link removed]
 
I wouldn't be that conspiratorial Blue Blaa .. i've certainly seen it reported fairly widely several times before that Sadaam paid the families of suicide bombers lots of money.

The article (if you read it) doesn't say that the UN paid the money it says rather than cash acquired from bribes paid to Sadaam's regime to get in on various Oil for Food programes that existed due to the sanctions.

It is not saying that UN money was "diverted" rather the diverted money was the ill-gotten proceeds of corruption which accompanied the sanctions (and I'm sure pre and post dated it also)

Given the story is on associated press newswire I'd imagine that it could well be covered over here .. but quite frankly it's not really very exciting and it's kind of old news.
 
The UN is a wonderful idea, but one that has failed completely in its practical application.

Does it ever do ANYTHING these days besides provide photo ops for Koffi Annan?
 
Unfortunately the very way the UN is organized restricts it from doing anything at all in most cases. Often enough at least one the permanent UN security council members (US, France, Russia, UK, China) has an issue with a resolution for whatever political reasons. All that is needed is one veto and a resolution will not pass. For the UN to be more effective and efficient at what it is meant to do this voting system would need to be changed, which can only be changed if all the members of the UN agreed. This will not happen for reasons like following:
Imagine the UN wanted to crack down on drug distribution world wide by deploying UN troops. Could you imagine UN troops deployed in Amsterdam? There is probably an example for every country.
So, it is up to the permanent members, and sometimes the non-permanent members, to make things happen. It baffles me sometimes when I hear French, British and US politicians talking about the failure of the UN!?!?!
 
It is a bit rich that if a communist dictatorship and a former communist dictatorship (now authoritarian semi-dictatorship) gives their OK to democratic countries to wage war it's OK but if they don't it's against international law.
China and Russia are not well placed to be moral authorities on justice and human rights so why should the USA listen to them?
I don't support the current US foreign policy but I find it hard to listen to people holding up the UN as an example of all things shiny and righteous.
The Chinese are making too much money supplying arms to the Sudanese government to do much about Dar Fur.

The UN's record on supporting the good guys is deplorable.
Remember that they did nothing in Rwanda except send in French troops to support the genocidal Hutu power government and actively help to kill 100,000 people within their "zone turquoise" in the time they were there.
Then after the rebels stopped the massacre the UN sent nothing to the survivors but sent tens of millions to help 90,000 or so murders in the Congolese refugee camps.
We had the biggest concentration of mass murderers in one place in history and all the UN did was give them food and money to continue the genocide (an additional 20,000 people were killed in Rwanda by gangs based in UN run Congolese camps after the war was over. This only ended when the Rwandans invaded the Congo and overthrew it's dictatorial government).
And it's still going on, see herefor details.
The UN, at a security council level, is a farce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top