More UN duplicity

[Fairweather]

Looks like the UN knew some things they weren't interested in sharing with the world prior to the war.

 

When this piece is combined with other recent stories, it seems that the "oil-for-food" program was nothing more than a cash-cow for Saddam and corrupt UN bureaucrats. Makes me wonder what bribes were paid to the UN by Castro to gain Cuba its current appointment to the Human Rights Commission. The UN is a joke.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/saddam_bribery030520.html

[allthumbs]

those dirty bastards

[MtnGoat]

What a shock. The toothless numbnuts at the UN know full well Saddam and Co is stealing from the UN approved Oil for Food program and just keeps mum. Then they stay mum while the usual suspects complain about sanctions harming Iraq, while in possession of knowledge of just where the money is actually going.

 

Sounds about par for the course. Everyone interviewed in that article basically says "not my job" and "gee, isn't it too bad". Hadn't they ever heard of telling someone outside of the UN about it and making a stink? Or is the UN's non existent reputation for "effectiveness" preventing them from doing what beaurocrats everywhere dread... actually taking action?

 

[erik]

well shit, it looks like par for the course. we got crooked euros, crooked middle easterns and crooked americans all in the stew.

 

combinded this with bush's lies, i dont think this war actually happend.

or maybe it did..........................................

 

 

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

MtnGoat said:

What a shock. The toothless numbnuts at the UN know full well Saddam and Co is stealing from the UN approved Oil for Food program and just keeps mum. Then they stay mum while the usual suspects complain about sanctions harming Iraq, while in possession of knowledge of just where the money is actually going.

 

Sounds about par for the course. Everyone interviewed in that article basically says "not my job" and "gee, isn't it too bad". Hadn't they ever heard of telling someone outside of the UN about it and making a stink? Or is the UN's non existent reputation for "effectiveness" preventing them from doing what beaurocrats everywhere dread... actually taking action?

 

Goat, DFA gives the above post two thumbs up for style ( Count 'em; uno, dos). It's about time you threw in some humor and used some snappy terminology like "toothless numbnuts". That's good shit! And you actually sound riled up, and a little flippant with your criticism, instead of the usual forensic tone and sterile analysis. Just goes to show that pissing on your enemies is far more enjoyable than carefully swabbing them down with lye.

[Fence_Sitter]

[MtnGoat]

I prefer the caustic sterile treatment when dealing with individuals, because as actual person's responding they deserve some measure of respect IMO. Attacking worthless screwheads like the UN is a totally different matter. Few institutions so riddled with pointless beaurocracy ( a singular hallmark of a socialist entity) can boast such an incredible record of ineffectiveness and failed ideas. From Libya chairing the council on Human rights, to Iraq's coming turn to chair the disarmament committee, to the knowingly permitting Saddam to soak up oil for food money, it just gets better and better. The UN should be dissolved.

[j_b]

yeah, yeah. we know, your extremist buddies can't control the UN all the times so it must be a socialist organization

 

are you sure they have not 'found' a link to al qaeda as well? calling people terrorists is so much more effective these days.

[Fence_Sitter]

the UN is the head of al qaeda! you herd it here first!

[Fairweather]

I think we will see the idea of dissolving (or at least restructuring) the UN move from the fringes to the mainstream in short order. I certainly don't want to see this behemoth gain any more power than it already has.

 

 

 

 

[MtnGoat]

hardly, j_w, it's human rights charter and it's contents, make it a socialist organization.

 

When you believe people have "postive" rights specifically entitling them to the labor and resources of other people, and that the state, not private ownership, should direct production and specify distribution, via state coercion, you are a socialist. Support that all you like, buts lets at least be honest about their ideology.

Edited May 22, 2003 by MtnGoat