[moki]

Quite prescient, really -- what with the corruption documented in the Iraqi oil for food program. This rather succinctly enumerates why many Americans lost faith in the UN quite some time ago.

.....

[Congressional Record: November 16, 2001 (Extensions)]
[Page E2119]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr16no01-52]


KOFI ANNAN AND UNITED NATIONS ARE STAINED WITH BLOOD

______

HON. CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Friday, November 16, 2001

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, now I think I've just about seen and heard everything: Kofi Annan and the United Nations being announced as joint recipients of this year's Nobel Peace Prize. I'm not saying there wasn't a time in the UN's history when it wasn't deserved. What I'm saying is I don't believe it's deserved right now. Instead, I believe that to award the UN and Kofi Annan now amounts to an insult to the millions that have died at the hands of the United Nations in recent years.

Mr. Speaker, Kofi Annan and the United Nations are stained with the blood of millions of dead people.

Let me tell you about some of their recent failures.

Let me start with their greatest failure--Rwanda. The 1994 Rwandan genocide must amount to one of the greatest humanitarian failures of any generation. Kofi Annan was the Director of UN Peacekeeping based in New York and was personally responsible for the UN Peace Keeping force in Rwanda. The now famous informant Jean Pierre had warned Dallaire and the UN leadership of the coming mass slaughter but his information was cavalierly dismissed.

Tragically, as had been predicted, Rwanda exploded into an orgy of violence the likes of which the last century had never seen. At the end of 100 days an estimated 1,000,000 Rwandan men, women, and children had been bludgeoned, macheted, and axed to death. The daily death rate was five times that of the Nazi industrial death camps. Instead of reinforcing the UN contingent in Kigali, the UN actually ordered the withdrawal of their troops. It was then that the killing in Kigali exploded. Of course, the US bears much of the blame for the UN's inaction.

And now the much-celebrated International Tribunal for Rwanda has become yet another UN bureaucratic disaster. Repeated UN investigations have found widespread mismanagement, wastage, incompetence, and corruption. The Tribunal has prosecuted a fraction of the Rwandan genocide suspects it holds in custody. It has even been criticized by its own Appeal Court of prosecutorial incompetence and failing to observe elementary due process considerations. Sadly, the Tribunal, which should have brought justice to the region, has instead become another multi-million dollar UN boondoggle.

Srebrenica, a name now associated with one of the worst crimes in Europe since WWII or as Judge Riad of the ICTY described it, ``. . . a place where thousands of men were executed, hundreds buried alive, men and women mutilated and slaughtered, children killed before their mother's eyes, and a grandfather was forced to eat the liver of his own grandson.'' These are truly scenes from hell written on the darkest pages of human history. The UN created a safe haven in Srebrenica and encouraged civilians to enter en masse so as to be under UN military protection.

Only one condition applied--entry into the UN safe haven required Muslim fighters to surrender their weapons. This they did, hoping that if ever the need arose they would get them back. They were to be sorely disappointed on that score.

When it became apparent that General Mladic was separating the men from the women and then killing them in the nearby fields, the Dutch UN troops began pleading for UN military support. But, just like Rwanda, the UN leadership once again became paralyzed and failed. They dithered over air strikes, they refused to send in troops to help the beleaguered Dutch and in the end, just as with Rwanda, the UN withdrew their troops. This permitted General Mladic to remove an estimated 5,000-8,000 Muslims from in and around the UN compound in Potocari and slaughter them.

To this day the United Nations and no UN official has ever been held criminally or civilly liable, let alone even publicly admonished, for their massive failures in Srebrenica. All the families of the thousands of victims can do now is pick up the pieces of their broken families and attempt to restart their lives.

Mr. Speaker, sadly there is more.

East Timor. In late August 1999, the UN and now Secretary General Annan, called for elections on the small island country of East Timor despite disturbing evidence that hard line elements in the Indonesian military were preparing to cause wide spread public disorder so as to disrupt the elections. The UN failed to provide adequate protection for the civilian population.

Dili was burnt to the ground and East Timor was engulfed in violence. After weeks of killing and millions of dollars of damage, the Australian government sent in ground troops to restore order to East Timor; but by then, it was too late to save East Timor from UN bungling.

Sierra Leone. So bad was the UN's conduct in Sierra Leone in June 2000 that their long time supporter and friend, Medicins Sans Frontieres, felt compelled to speak out and complain. MSF complained bitterly that the UN troops fled a RUF attack on the Sierra Leonean town of Kabala.

In so doing MSF said that the UN had failed its mandate to protect civilian populations, many of whom were sick women and malnourished children in the MSF hospital.

Cambodia. There is now mounting evidence that UN Peacekeeping troops actually caused an explosion of AIDS in Cambodia in 1992. In January of this year Richard Holbrooke, the then US Ambassador to the UN, launched an unprecedented attack upon the UN during his last UTN address saying ``. . . it would be the cruelest of ironies if people who had come to end war . . . were spreading the most deadly of diseases . . . it will kill more people and undermine more societies than even the most critical conflicts we discuss here.'' And despite Ambassador Holbrooke's warnings there are concerns that right now in East Timor UN staff could be causing yet another AIDS epidemic. Some things just never seem to change.

Mr. Speaker, let me put it squarely on the record. I believe in the UN. I believe that our country should support the UN. But I do not think that we should blindly lend our support in the face of massive negligence.

I think answers to these questions beg to be asked: After such repeated UN failures to act upon knowledge of impending humanitarian disasters, what forgiveness? After such repeated UN failures to discharge their sacred duties, what accountability? After such ongoing complicity by the UN in repeated slaughters, what punishment?

[bwahahax]

What happened in Rwanda and other parts of the world, where the UN was unable/unwilling to step in and save millions of lives, is regrettable.

But, at least the United Nations has not been going out of its way to actively kill millions, as branches of the United States government have done.

The major weakness of the United Nations is the security council, where the 5 most powerful nations are, undemocratically, given the chance to veto impending motions.

If you look back at many of the instances where the United Nations has failed to intervine, you will find that it was due to the motion being vetoed by one of these countries.

Had the motions been carried and voted on by the general council, then I think you would have seen much better outcomes.

Although I strongly disagree with much of American foreign policy over the past 50 years, I realize this is not merely a problem attributable to the United States' government.

All the major industrialized countries, Canada (where I'm from) included, have blood on their hands.

All of us are, most likely, causing suffering somewhere in the world.

We must realize that life MUST come first if we are to survive, and that War and military action NEVER put life first, and will NEVER be a solution.

That is another reason why you see the UN intervening as little as it does. They know that a great deal of damage can be done by physically intervening in a conflict, and that there is as much a guarantee that it will make things better, as there is that it will make things worse.

As flawed as the UN might be, there is only one country that can rival its influence. And given the record of the United States, I'm much more comfortable sticking with the United Nations.

[Nicko]

The UN does more good than bad, not to mention that they are the only global organization capable of achieving world peace.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by Nicko:
The UN does more good than bad, not to mention that they are the only global organization capable of achieving world peace.

Oh yes, clearly that's the case in israel.

[moki]

Originally posted by bwahahax:
What happened in Rwanda and other parts of the world, where the UN was unable/unwilling to step in and save millions of lives, is regrettable.

But, at least the United Nations has not been going out of its way to actively kill millions, as branches of the United State

Where, exactly, has the US actively killed millions? Let's not delve into hyperbole.

As for the UN, are you implying that letting people die by inaction is merely "regrettable"?

Inaction *is* an action.

[moki]

Originally posted by bwahahax:
As flawed as the UN might be, there is only one country that can rival its influence. And given the record of the United States, I'm much more comfortable sticking with the United Nations.

What record is that, exactly? Liberating France during WWII? Playing a very large role in ending the Nazi conquest of Europe? Breaking the backbone of the divine empire in Japan that inflicted atrocities all up and down Asia?

Defending South Korea, and helping to transform it into the world's 12th largest economy, rather than letting it dwindle to the festering level of DPRK?

Fighting the spread of USSR military backed communistic expansion, regimes which committed democides of upwards of 20 million people?

Defending Europe and much of the world during the cold war?

As an exercise, pick any country you care to. Perhaps there are some countries you prefer to the US, for ideological/political/cultural reasons.

Now imagine that this country was magically wiped off of the face of the planet 100 years ago. What would the world be like with that country missing from the world? Think in large-scale terms, not the pleasant individuals/culture in said country, but rather how it would affect the course of the world by its absence.

What if the USA disappeared 100 years ago? I can't think of another country disappearing that would have such a broad-reaching negative impact on what kind of world would exist today than the USA. The reasons should be glarringly obvious when you consider the history of the 20th century.

This isn't to trumpet the US, nor to belittle other countries -- but rather to serve as a reminder, a context if you will, in which to frame the anti-American sentiment heard today.

To those who harbor a growing dislike for the US, both those outside our country, and those within, I say this: we haven't changed. We aren't being any more imperialistic in Iraq than we were in Korea 50 years ago, or Germany/Japan 60 years ago, or defending much of the world in the long cold war with the USSR.

What has changed, though, is the threats facing the countries in the world. With a common enemy that you live in fear of, the guy with the big stick is your best friend. When that enemy goes away, the guy with the big stick is an arrogant bully.

That the USA played such a large role in bringing about the very conditions that removed these threats means we created the conditions for our own obsolescence and suspicion in world view. The USA hasn't changed; it just isn't as necessary or useful anymore -- our actions are no longer welcomed as defending the world and driving positive change, but rather are viewed through a veil of suspicion, imperialism, and distaste.

Does the world really want an isolationist America? Perhaps so. But if the last century is any judge, an isolationist America would be a phyrric victory for the world.

[Spliffdaddy]

well said

[Nicko]

Originally posted by moki:
W
Does the world really want an isolationist America? Perhaps so. But if the last century is any judge, an isolationist America would be a phyrric victory for the world.

Isolationist is the wrong word... try unilateralist - this is what is pissing off the rest of the world.

[moki]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Isolationist is the wrong word... try unilateralist - this is what is pissing off the rest of the world.

I don't think that's all there is to it. Had the a UN resolution passed, the US would have been accused of "buying" or "strong-arming" the votes, and everyone who is pissed off now would still be pissed off.

Also, it is not a bad thing to bypass an institution when it seems that the institution isn't functioning. That's the thrust of the topic I posted here, actually: the UN's lack of effectiveness on a broad range of issues.

One might argue that the US should have acted unilaterally back then, too, because many lives would have been saved.

Also, you didn't rebutt any of my points, or justify your assertion that the US has "[gone] out of its way to actively kill millions" -- it simply isn't true.

We must realize that life MUST come first if we are to survive, and that War and military action NEVER put life first, and will NEVER be a solution.

This is nice in theory, but patently false in reality. Or perhaps you can give me a non-military solution that would have ended World War II, for instance?

Idealism is easy. Every clear-thinking person agrees with it in principle. Reality is often counter-intuitive. Idealistic actions/notions don't always result positive things happening in the world.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by moki:

Idealism is easy. Every clear-thinking person agrees with it in principle. Reality is often counter-intuitive. Idealistic actions/notions don't always result positive things happening in the world.

Look I get it that you are defending the US's initiative in killing whomever they deem is acting against their interests. Just don't expect the rest of the world to sit idly without putting up a fight.

Oh yea, and if the US never existed, Canada would probably be ruling the world right now

[moki]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Look I get it that you are defending the US's initiative in killing whomever they deem is acting against their interests. Just don't expect the rest of the world to sit idly without putting up a fight.

No, I am taking you to task on the specious assertions you stated. As of yet, I haven't seen a substantive reply to that, nor to the issues I raised.

Originally posted by Nicko:
Oh yea, and if the US never existed, Canada would probably be ruling the world right now

Ah, then the burden of the world's focus and criticism for both action and inaction would be yours to bear.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by moki:

What has changed, though, is the threats facing the countries in the world. With a common enemy that you live in fear of, the guy with the big stick is your best friend. When that enemy goes away, the guy with the big stick is an arrogant bully.

Just who/what is this common enemy you speak of?

[moki]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Just who/what is this common enemy you speak of?

Apparently you missed the Cold War?

[simonjames]

too bad Rwanda isn't an oil rich country - if they were the US would have found a reason to invade I mean 'help them out'

[Nicko]

Originally posted by simonjames:
too bad Rwanda isn't an oil rich country - if they were the US would have found a reason to invade I mean 'help them out'

No doubt. No 'liberation' for them I guess.

[moki]

Originally posted by simonjames:
too bad Rwanda isn't an oil rich country - if they were the US would have found a reason to invade I mean 'help them out'

Interesting transference of blame from the UN, where it squarely belongs, to the US.

Was Afghanistan invaded because it was an oil-rich country too, or were there perhaps other reasons involved for that as well as Iraq?

I guess the Korean war, and the subsequent (and current) heavy US military pressence in the area is all about oil too, yes?

Or is the oil conspiracy theory only applied when is convenient for you?

Indeed, it must cause you some great consternation that in the US's history of considerable military might, an oil-rich country has been invaded only once.

[moki]

Originally posted by Nicko:
No doubt. No 'liberation' for them I guess.

Talk to your vaunted UN for allowing Rwanda to occur.

I am still waiting for you to justify your statement that the US has "[gone] out of its way to actively kill millions" (as if this is somehow better than the UN passively allowing it).

Please either defend your statement, or retract it.

[moki]

Originally posted by bwahahax:
But, at least the United Nations has not been going out of its way to actively kill millions, as branches of the United States government have done.

I found a country that agrees with you utterly, and is likely an ideological kindred spirit of yours:

from: http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2003/200305/news05/26.htm#2

.....

U.S. ambition for world supremacy under fire

___ Pyongyang, May 25 (KCNA) -- The Bush team in its official statements declared not only the U.S. mainland but all other countries of the world as regions where U.S. security should be protected. It claimed they include those countries that do not follow its policy, terrorism-sponsoring countries, states possessing weapons of mass destruction and anti-imperialist and independent countries. In this regard Rodong Sinmun today in a signed commentary says:
___ The U.S. loudmouthed "protection of security" is nothing but a revelation of its intention to continue "war against terrorism" in a bid to put the world under its domination and control in the new century.
___ The Bush team is violating the sovereignty and disturbing the peace and security of other countries and nations under the signboard of "protection of U.S. security".
___ All forms of aggression and intervention by the U.S. imperialists are veiled with the motto of "protection of U.S. security". In the new century they waged two brigandish wars of aggression against those regions allegedly to protect "U.S. security" with the mobilization of their aggressor forces.
___ They proclaimed South Korea far away from the U.S. mainland as a "forefront for carrying out the U.S. strategy for security".
___ They are posing a serious threat to the peace and security on the Korean Peninsula and the rest of Asia, keeping huge aggressor forces and nuclear weapons in South Korea.
___ There is no limit to the "sphere of defending U.S. security."
___ The military actions being perpetrated by the U.S. imperialists in different parts of the world under the pretext of "defending the security" mean bloody mass killings based on the jungle law to dominate the world.
___ Their wild ambition for world supremacy, however, will never come true

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

too bad Rwanda isn't an oil rich country - if they were the US would have found a reason to invade I mean 'help them out'

Would that be invade them as in conquer them and hold them as a colony for 80 years and remain dicking them around ever since? 'Help them out' by arming them to slaughter each other? Too late for the US; the French, Belgians and other assorted Euroweenies already beat us to it. (As usual).

Gee, I can just imagine it anyhow, the US getting involved in some thankless war in some third-world $hithole, mopping up the results of decades on end of French/Euroweenie conquest and run away... I dunno, sounds oddly familiar somehow… like shades of… oh, I don’t know… Vietnam.

Sorry, oil conspiracy nonsense asside, we opted out of this one. Of course, not that we won’t continue to foot a huge chunk of the relief effort bill. (Again, what's new?)

To counter the invasion, the Hutu government drew from its existing stock of Belgian automatic rifles and French armored vehicles. But Rwanda was understocked and under siege. Until then, Belgium, Rwanda's former colonial ruler, had been its main military patron. But Belgium had an explicit policy against providing lethal arms to a country at war. Following the invasion, Belgium continued to provide military training, boots, and uniforms to the Rwandan army, but no arms. France, however, rushed in 60-mm, 81.-mm, and 120-mm mortars and 105-mm light artillery guns. France, which was committed to keeping Rwanda within the bloc of 21 Francophone African nations, also provided seasoned advisers and four companies of 680 combat troops at a time.

An arms race was under way. More than a dozen nations helped fuel the Rwandan war, and both sides appear to have purchased considerable weaponry through private sources on the open market. By its own admission, the Rwanda government bankrupted its economy to pay for those weapons.

…By 1993, Rwanda's Hutu government had begun to look to Russia to buy arms, especially Kalashnikov AKMs. But the key suppliers for government forces were France, Egypt, and South Africa. A $6 million contract between Egypt and Rwanda in March 1992, with Rwanda's payment guaranteed by a French bank, included 60-mm and 82-mm mortars, 16,000 mortar shells, 122-mm D-30 howitzers, 3,000 artillery shells, rocket-propelled grenades, plastic explosives, antipersonnel land mines, and more than three million rounds of small arms ammunition.

South Africa also supplied small arms, including R-4 automatic rifles, 7.62-mm machine guns, and 12.7-mm Browning machine guns. In October 1992, on the heels ofthe Egyptian deal, Rwanda made a $5.9 million purchase from South Africa: 100 60-mm mortars, 70 40-mm grenade launchers with 10,000 grenades, 20,000 rifle grenades, 10,000 hand grenades, spare parts and 1.5 million rounds of ammunition for R-4 rifles, and one million rounds of machine gun ammunition.

South Africa developed its arms industry in response to the U.N. embargo against it. Its conventional weaponry is considered to be among the most durable and reliable in the world -- a fact Rwanda quickly learned. By late 1993, within a year of its $5.9 million purchase, Rwanda had decided to standardize its infantry forces with South African arms. These purchases from South Africa were in contravention of U.N. Security Council Resolution 558 opposing importation of weapons from South Africa. The import prohibition was voluntary, unlike the U.N. ban on arms exports to South Africa, which was lifted in May.

Source.


Yet somehow I’m sure it’s all the US’s fault. Sure.

[voodoo]

The UN is what the members make of it.. The UN is *not* an independant body of force.

Moki: while the UN isn't above criticism, tearing at it like CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY did and you do to some extent is unconstructive. Criticise the members of the UN that aren't doing what must be done. Kofi Annan is not the proseident of the World, and that is not what the UN is about.

I am a hardcore realist and cynical enough to see this kind of criticism against the UN will only serve to hinder the UN from ever aspiring higher.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by moki:
Quite prescient, really -- what with the corruption documented in the Iraqi oil for food program. This rather succinctly enumerates why many Americans lost faith in the UN quite some time ago.

.....

[Congressional Record: November 16, 2001 (Extensions)]
[Page E2119]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr16no01-52]


KOFI ANNAN AND UNITED NATIONS ARE STAINED WITH BLOOD

______

HON. CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Friday, November 16, 2001

Why are you quoting Cynthia McKinney? She is a known nutter.

[moki]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I am a hardcore realist and cynical enough to see this kind of criticism against the UN will only serve to hinder the UN from ever aspiring higher.

In my view, the UN needs a fairly radical overhaul to become a useful entity again -- and this isn't a reaction to the Iraq issue. The UN has demonstrated a lack of resolve for decades.

When an institution doesn't work, it's time to overhaul the institution, IMHO.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by moki:
In my view, the UN needs a fairly radical overhaul to become a useful entity again -- and this isn't a reaction to the Iraq issue. The UN has demonstrated a lack of resolve for decades.

When an institution doesn't work, it's time to overhaul the institution, IMHO.

I agree with you on that. IMO the veto powers should be scrapped. Do that and it would level the playing field a bit more.

What would be your 'overhaul'?

[chris v]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Would that be invade them as in conquer them and hold them as a colony for 80 years and remain dicking them around ever since? 'Help them out' by arming them to slaughter each other? Too late for the US; the French, Belgians and other assorted Euroweenies already beat us to it. (As usual).

Yet somehow I?m sure it?s all the US?s fault. Sure.

We could own up to the assasination of Patrice Lumumba in The DR of Congo in '61. That was the single destabilizing event that led to 30 years of Mobutu Sese Seko's murderous pillaging and the subesquent civil war and human catastrophe.

We've had a hand in screwing up Africa, too (though yes, the Belgians have a collective memory problem there that's truly bizzare.)

CV

[Troll]

Originally posted by moki:
In my view, the UN needs a fairly radical overhaul to become a useful entity again -- and this isn't a reaction to the Iraq issue. The UN has demonstrated a lack of resolve for decades.

When an institution doesn't work, it's time to overhaul the institution, IMHO.

I'm not sure some of the people that comment on the UN's effectiveness actually understand what it is. It's probably not their fault because it seems to me that the US media is making the UN out to be something it is isn't. Actually, I think people know what the UN is and then forget when they sit down in front of CNN or Fox. I don't for example, understand how you can accuse the UN of "inaction" or how you can say it "shows a lack of resolve." What does that mean? Are you saying, the UN failed to arrange meetings in NY or Geneva so that the states that make up the UN could decide on taking action in Rwanda or that troops were put at the UN's disposition and they failed to send them in? The UN is basically a facilitator. It has no independent means of taking decisions or implementing decisions (although there are precedents of the Security General acting to the limit and perhaps beyond his powers) which means it can't "show any resolve" or "take any action."

If the UN is not working today it is because the states that comprise the UN are not making it work. As far as the history of inaction on the part of the UN goes, the US bears a lot of responsibility for the UN's failings. The US's veto wielding over apartheid and Israel are prime examples as are the US's recent ignoring of international law and unilateral action.

Ironically, what the UN probably needs to stand up to the criticism levelled at it by the US administration, is an independent decision-making body and a means of implementing those decisions (i.e. an army). Of course, that would accentuate the central problem the Bush administration has with any international body; that such an organisation might pose a threat to US sovereignty. It would be interesting to ask the administration what they'd like to replace the UN with. My feeling is they'd say, "Nothing!" Of course, a hegemonic global system works for the hegemon, but not for anyone else. The US will not always be the biggest bully on the block and there is inherent value for the US too in having a fair, representative, international system. The UN, for all its failings, is the closest we've yet come to international democracy and a mechanism for the resolution of international disputes. The only better solution I can see is giving the UN greater powers and that won't happen probably in our lifetimes.

[moki]

Originally posted by Nicko:
I agree with you on that. IMO the veto powers should be scrapped. Do that and it would level the playing field a bit more.

What would be your 'overhaul'?

I agree the veto should go, but there should be even more fundemental changes. The security council is too elitist, and represents the state of the world at the end of WWII. That does not represent the reality of the world today.

I'd like to see something along the lines of the US house/senate. One voting body that has a vote from each member nation, and another voting body that has a number of votes proportionate to the population and some measure of economic status.

A security council resolution, to be binding, would have to pass by a majority vote in both bodies. Thus every country is represented equally in one body, and proportionately by "importance" in the other.

The problem with this is twofold: as has been noted, for it to be useful, the UN would also need the ability to act. Secondly, it would inevitably result in countries trading favors for votes on various issues -- but at the very least, I think it would be more fair than what we have today.

Also, it runs the risk of becoming a beaurocratic nightmare that is able to accomplish even less than it does today.

[xi_hyperon]

I was surprised when I saw the author of the article you posted, moki. Cynthia McKinney is a few cards shy of a full deck. Not that what she is saying is necessarily incorrect, but I'd look for a more stable and credible source on which to base your arguments.

[Troll]

Originally posted by moki:
The security council is too elitist, and represents the state of the world at the end of WWII. That does not represent the reality of the world today.

Moki, just to be clear, are you suggesting that more nations be added to the Security Council or that the total number stay the same with some current members being replaced?

[simonjames]

Moki - you conveniently left out Kuwait.

We're talking recent history here - not 20 years ago.

Yes - the UN has some explaining to do but it ain't running around invading countries to steal their natural resources

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by simonjames:
Moki - you conveniently left out Kuwait.

We're talking recent history here - not 20 years ago.

Yes - the UN has some explaining to do but it ain't running around invading countries to steal their natural resources

Yeah, you are right, Saddam was a pretty evil guy to invade Kuwait to steal it's oil.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
Cynthia McKinney is a few cards shy of a full deck.

A few asperins short of a medicine cabinet.

[simonjames]

It never ceases to amaze me how the US can create justifications for it's hostile acts and in this instance, try to turn the tables on others. "Lets get rid of the veto!!!" {I'll bet my grandmother that the USA has vetoed more UN resolutions than any other country.}

its also amazing how brainwashed it's citizens are

I'll just sit here with an amazed look on my face, eating popcorn and reading the furphies about how bad the UN is and how great the US of A will be when it controls the UN.

[moki]

Originally posted by simonjames:
It never ceases to amaze me how the US can create justifications for it's hostile acts and in this instance, try to turn the tables on others. "Lets get rid of the veto!!!" {I'll bet my grandmother that the USA has vetoed more UN resolutions than any other country.}

its also amazing how brainwashed it's citizens are

Ah yes, falling back on the "stupid Americans" crutch. Really, it does you no justice. I've traveled far and wide, and the proportion of stupid/uninformed people around the world is quite constant.

As for getting rid of the veto, I do think it is a good idea, because I don't want any country, the US included, to be weilding that kind of power in the UN. It simply makes no sense, and serves to make the UN seem less legimate in the eyes of people around the world.

[moki]

Originally posted by simonjames:
Moki - you conveniently left out Kuwait.

We're talking recent history here - not 20 years ago.

You either aren't aware of what is going on, or you are conveniently spinning it to suit your purposes.

The US did not "invade" Kuwait, we were beg, pleaded, and mandated to go in. Indeed Kuwait remains a vigilant supporter of the US *because* we didn't take over their country after the first Gulf War.

There was some nervousness on the part of Kuwaitis, which thankfully for all involved ended up being unwarranted paranoia. Indeed, prior to the invasion of Iraq, a high level Kuwaiti official went on the record stating that America came in, saved them, and then left Kuwait alone to run itself.

When will this imperialistic America drivel end? If we wanted to be running Japan, we could have been. They were defeated utterly. If we wanted to be running Germany the way Russia took over and subjagated the East, we could have. If we wanted to be running South Korea, we could be running that country too. The list goes on and on.

Fine, you don't like America -- that's great. At least be factual about it.

[Spliffdaddy]

If you only look at the facts - then you can't help but love America.

[alex_kac]

Originally posted by bwahahax:
We must realize that life MUST come first if we are to survive, and that War and military action NEVER put life first, and will NEVER be a solution.

That is another reason why you see the UN intervening as little as it does. They know that a great deal of damage can be done by physically intervening in a conflict, and that there is as much a guarantee that it will make things better, as there is that it will make things worse.

Can you possibly actually believe that war never puts life first? You are sadly mistaken. It is people like you that would have let the German army take over the world in WW2. I am of Russian descent and my grandfather and millions of Russians died to protect their families and their country.

Sometimes you have to fight to protect life. If everybody was peaceful, that would not be the case. But the world is not so peaceful a place.

[alex_kac]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Isolationist is the wrong word... try unilateralist - this is what is pissing off the rest of the world.

Mob rules is not good rule. The USA is unilateralist only when the choice before it seems right and others disagree.

I guess the lone lemming who doesn't jump off the cliff is unilateralist. The high school student who doesn't do drugs even when pressured is unilateralist. No, we call that smart and independent.

Also remember, the USA is not led by prophets. The leaders make the best decisions they can with the info they have on hand. Sometimes its right, sometimes its wrong. But again...that's how life works.

[Troll]

Originally posted by moki:
As for getting rid of the veto, I do think it is a good idea, because I don't want any country, the US included, to be weilding that kind of power in the UN. It simply makes no sense, and serves to make the UN seem less legimate in the eyes of people around the world.

Here I tend to agree with you.

Of course, the Iraq war didn't have majority support in either the SC or the GA. The problems with the current UN system as evidenced by Gulf War II would therefore have been even more pronounced if the system you're proposing had been in place, i.e. the 'Coalition' going against the will of a bigger majority. Which suggests that the UN actually needs a way to enforce the will of the majority. So, Moki, what else apart from scrapping the veto?

PS The US is in second place in terms of veto usage. The USSR has used it more times than any other nation on the SC.

[alex_kac]

Originally posted by chris v:
We could own up to the assasination of Patrice Lumumba in The DR of Congo in '61. That was the single destabilizing event that led to 30 years of Mobutu Sese Seko's murderous pillaging and the subesquent civil war and human catastrophe.

We've had a hand in screwing up Africa, too (though yes, the Belgians have a collective memory problem there that's truly bizzare.)

CV

Who said the US was perfect? We make decisions as well as we can with the info and beliefs that we have at that time.

Hindsight is 20/20. And yes, we should own up to our own transgressions - but it gets a bit difficult to swallow when you see what the rest of the world's major nations get off doing.

[chris v]

Originally posted by alex_kac:
Who said the US was perfect? We make decisions as well as we can with the info and beliefs that we have at that time.

Hindsight is 20/20. And yes, we should own up to our own transgressions - but it gets a bit difficult to swallow when you see what the rest of the world's major nations get off doing.

I was merely contradicting Crash's point that nothing that has happened in Africa is America's fault. The situation in the DR of Congo is one of the great tragedies of the century, on a par with the Jewish holocaust, and we had a LARGE hand in it. Mobutu was OUR MAN. we put him in power. America. We did business with him for over twenty years. You and me. Our government.

To suggest that because other countries have done horrible things in Africa is any kind of an excuse is utter and complete bullsh*t. I think I'll beat the crap out of that little kid down the block and take his last dime, because my neighbor King Leopold didn't quite finish the job.

If we're the beacon of freedom and democracy across the world, then let's get to it. Or shut up, one of the two.

CV

[moki]

Originally posted by alex_kac:
Hindsight is 20/20. And yes, we should own up to our own transgressions - but it gets a bit difficult to swallow when you see what the rest of the world's major nations get off doing.

That's actually something that I find rather ironic... when I heard "imperialist America" wafting from over the Atlantic, I can't help but wonder if history classes in Europe suffer from lack of attendence.

If you want to see what imperialism is, one need only look at the UK, France, The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and so on. Look at how Africa was partitioned and plundered, with colonialist governments cynically installed and governed.

Or look at just about any part of the world -- most of the areas of conflict are places where these imperialistic countries set up shop. Vietnam (thank you, France). India/Pakistan. Iraq. The list is nearly endless.

Meanwhile, speaking of imperialism, the EU is a new kind of imperialist movement in itself. Sure, some people view it as a free trade zone -- but let me assure you that the aspirations are a bit higher than that in Brussels. Just look at the ruckus over the proposed EU constitution including the word "federal government" -- it's quite clear what is intended, they just have to make the transition gradual enough so that people won't complain too much.

Where else are countries being assimilated into a larger imperialistic power than in the EU? Chirac's pushing for an EU military to "rival the US" is telling. We'll call it neo-imperialism.

Indeed, one might even put forth the proposition that Chirac and others in the EU have cynically used the boogeyman of "imperialistic America" to bolster their own ambitions. Scare the public into seeing a perceived threat from America, and it'll be easier to push for a strong central EU government to rival them.

Paranoid? Maybe. No less paranoid than the nonsense I see bandied about here concerning America, though.

[Troll]

Originally posted by moki:
Sure, some people view it as a free trade zone -- but let me assure you that the aspirations are a bit higher than that in Brussels.

This harks back to the point I made earlier about the UN and the UK press is the most guilty in the case of the EU personifying "Brussels." The EU is made up of the member states. There isn't anyone in Brussels that makes any decisions independently of the countries that make up the EU.

[Logic]

Originally posted by moki:
That's actually something that I find rather ironic... when I heard "imperialist America" wafting from over the Atlantic, I can't help but wonder if history classes in Europe suffer from lack of attendence.

And I always wonder how history is tought in the US. Yes, European countries behaved like idiots. But that old news. Most of those colonies where formed before the discovery of the US(that is the official discovery, not the Icelander) IIRC. What people are compaining about now is what the US has been doing for the last 50 years. In those 50 years, Europe has been "releasing" their last colonies. At the same time the US is indirectly colonizing. You do see the difference don't you?

If you want to see what imperialism is, one need only look at the UK, France, The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and so on. Look at how Africa was partitioned and plundered, with colonialist governments cynically installed and governed.

Again, this is old news. The peak was in the 1700-1800. Since then one after another the colonies have been given autonomy or freedom. Don't they teach you that in the US

Or look at just about any part of the world -- most of the areas of conflict are places where these imperialistic countries set up shop. Vietnam (thank you, France). India/Pakistan. Iraq. The list is nearly endless.

Yes, pass the blame on us if it makes you feel better. We all know the history of Europe. But whatever makes you feel better......

Meanwhile, speaking of imperialism, the EU is a new kind of imperialist movement in itself. Sure, some people view it as a free trade zone -- but let me assure you that the aspirations are a bit higher than that in Brussels. Just look at the ruckus over the proposed EU constitution including the word "federal government" -- it's quite clear what is intended, they just have to make the transition gradual enough so that people won't complain too much.

The aspirations are higher than just a free trade zone. The word federal government was taken out of the constitution since the UK didn't wan't it. But tell me is anything that the EU is doing, morally or legally wrong? Why mention the EU at all. Are you afraid that EU will go back to the colonies, ship some slaves to the US and after a while start the triangle again?

Where else are countries being assimilated into a larger imperialistic power than in the EU? Chirac's pushing for an EU military to "rival the US" is telling. We'll call it neo-imperialism.

.......snipped rest

I'm going to play the Simey game on this one. Please find one link that quotes Chirac saying that. Not something FOX threw out, but an actual quote.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by alex_kac:

Hindsight is 20/20.

Bullcrap!

By using that phrase you show that you are talking out of your ass.

It is an incredibly daft comment. I resent it.

[moki]

Originally posted by Troll:
This harks back to the point I made earlier about the UN and the UK press is the most guilty in the case of the EU personifying "Brussels." The EU is made up of the member states. There isn't anyone in Brussels that makes any decisions independently of the countries that make up the EU.

That's actually not true. 70% of the various trade, economic, and other laws passed in countries in the EU are merely rubber-stamped at a local level -- they come from Brussels.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by moki:
That's actually not true. 70% of the various trade, economic, and other laws passed in countries in the EU are merely rubber-stamped at a local level -- they come from Brussels.

no. that may be the EU of the future, but today it is the reverse of what you said.

[moki]

Originally posted by Logic:
The aspirations are higher than just a free trade zone. The word federal government was taken out of the constitution since the UK didn't wan't it. But tell me is anything that the EU is doing, morally or legally wrong? Why mention the EU at all. Are you afraid that EU will go back to the colonies, ship some slaves to the US and after a while start the triangle again?

Nay, I was attempting to point out the ridiculous paranoia concerning the US and "imperialism". Countries that have a history of imperialism might be suspect before the US, to my mind. We have had many chances to show our imperialist bent, but we didn't do it in Germany, we didn't do it in Japan, we didn't do it In Korea... the list goes on and on.

How about we get back to debating reasonable issues, in a reasonable manner, instead of hyperbole?

Originally posted by Logic:
I'm going to play the Simey game on this one. Please find one link that quotes Chirac saying that. Not something FOX threw out, but an actual quote.

But now there are signs that these states are willing to put up even more resistance. On April 29, the leaders of France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg agreed to work towards a European Security and Defense Union by the end of 2004. As part of this union, the four member states would combine resources to create a rapid reaction force capable of preventing conflicts and managing military problems anywhere in the world. Furthermore, this force would be commanded by an independent E.U. military command center just outside Brussels. Such a force, as stated by French President Jacques Chirac, is necessary in order to create "balance." Chirac added, "We need a stronger European Union and a strong United States."

The word he used in his quote was "balance" -- a very politically savvy term, but I grant you, the word was not "rival"

[moki]

Originally posted by voodoo:
no. that may be the EU of the future, but today it is the reverse of what you said.

Sigh... alright, let me dig up the quote from The Economist...

[simonjames]

As for overhauling the UN - Why?

The UN is made up of it's member countries - it is these countries that decide the agenda of what the UN will or will not do.

So don't go blaming Rwanda on the UN - blame it on the member states who were too damn comfortable or lazy to pull their finger out to actually do something.

Similarly the UN makes decisions and the member countries should abide by the decision. How would you feel if you were the captain in a football team where you and 3/4s of the team decided on a certain play and one spoilt brat - the biggest member of the team - decided "screw the team, I am going to do it my way" and ran off with the ball.

Think about the whole picture and just not your own backyard.

[moki]

Originally posted by simonjames:
The UN is made up of it's member countries - it is these countries that decide the agenda of what the UN will or will not do.

So don't go blaming Rwanda on the UN - blame it on the member states who were too damn comfortable or lazy to pull their finger out to actually do something.

that's just it -- the UN veritably institutionalizes paralysis. When an institution is so mired in beaurocracy that nothing can be accomplished, what's the point, other than it being a forum for people from various countries to make speeches?

Originally posted by simonjames:
Similarly the UN makes decisions and the member countries should abide by the decision. How would you feel if you were the captain in a football team where you and 3/4s of the team decided on a certain play and one spoilt brat - the biggest member of the team - decided "screw the team, I am going to do it my way" and ran off with the ball.

Think about the whole picture and just not your own backyard.

How would you feel, as a captain, if everyone on the football team decided they'd rather work on making money from product endorsements than practice? What if they were throwing away an important game because they just didn't feel like running after that silly little ball?

If you had initiative and conviction, odds are you'd try to do something about it on your own, and try to win the game, the rest of the team's recalcitrance be damned.

And yes, please do indeed think about the whole picture.