Support NeoGAF

[Cooter]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6194795/

We need to get rid of this piece of shit organization.

The Duelfer report said Benon Sevan, the former chief of the U.N. program, is among dozens of people who allegedly received secret oil vouchers, with Saddam personally approving the list of recipients. The voucher list was dominated by Russian, French and Chinese recipients, in that order, with Saddam spreading the wealth widely to prominent business leaders, politicians, foreign government ministries and political parties, the report said.

Gee, what a coincidence, these three were all heavily opposed to removing Saddam.

Biggest story no ones talking about.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Yes, it was definitely the secret misdeeds of a few people that made the vast majority of their populations feel a certain way.

(Though actually I guess I'd say something very similar about those who support the war in the US, so hey.)

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Probably becasue we weren't led to war on due to the corruption of the UN. Name the one time that anyone in the administration said "We need to commit troops to Iraq because members of the UN are corrupt."


You arguement doesn't make sense. From your inference the UN looks like they are opportunists and if that is the case (and admittedly that is likely so) then why wouldn't they get on the bandwagon of the winning team? You don't presume to say that these people would have gotten less money by working with the US as opposed to Saddam. There is mass corruption going on now with the US in control!

If these guys are ALL about money then why did they not want to work with the biggest checkbook on the planet?




Spin! Give me more spin.

 

[Hitokage]

In a world where might makes right, the UN, and the diplomacy it represents, is as wrong as they come. They should learn the values of strength and an iron will!

 

[Ripclawe]

From your inference the UN looks like they are opportunists and if that is the case (and admittedly that is likely so

likely? This is not a surprise to anyone who has followed the UN antics for at least 20 years, It's corrupt to the core.

In a world where might makes right, the UN, and the diplomacy it represents, is as wrong as they come. They should learn the values of strength and an iron will!

If Might makes right mantra was used, we wouldn't have had Rwanda and now Darfur. Who is getting things done in Darfur despite the U.N.? America and Tony Blair

 

[Hitokage]

Uh, you're not arguing against my point...

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

likely? This is not a surprise to anyone who has followed the UN antics for at least 20 years, It's corrupt to the core.

So then why did this corrupt orgnization not get on the boat with the biggest checkbook? That doesn't make sense to stay on the "side" of a guy that isn't going to be able to pay you anymore. Explain why they did that. The UN's hate of the US is so great that they are going to forfit the only thing that from your view that motivates them?


There are corrupt individuals in EVERY govenmental body.

Sell me more spin!

 

[Ripclawe]

Uh, you're not arguing against my point...

I just gave 2 examples of the failures of UN diplomacy. UN has no iron will, they have no strength. Its a representation of failed ideals still being pushed as legitimate.

 

[Hitokage]

I just gave 2 examples of the failures of UN diplomacy. UN has no iron will, they have no strength. Its a representation of failed ideals still being pushed as legitimate.

You weren't supposed to admit your belief in the inhereit value of strength over reason quite so readily.

 

[Ripclawe]

So then why did this corrupt orgnization not get on the boat with the biggest checkbook?

because the side with the biggest sums of money wasn't going to pay them bribe money? you do understand the scheme was Saddam with his vast oil reserves would pay money to get sanctions lifted, the countries and people who had helped him would then have access to even more money as they sell him goods and services as preferred sellers?

That doesn't make sense to stay on the "side" of a guy that isn't going to be able to pay you anymore. Explain why they did that. The UN's hate of the US is so great that they are going to forfit the only thing that from your view that motivates them?

The U.N. loses out on money if the war starts, of course they are going to stay on his side till the end.

 

[Ripclawe]

You weren't supposed to admit your belief in the inhereit value of strength over reason quite so readily.

Well at least the UN is finally getting around to something.

UN panel to look into genocide in Sudan's Darfur

 

[vangace]

I just gave 2 examples of the failures of UN diplomacy. UN has no iron will, they have no strength. Its a representation of failed ideals still being pushed as legitimate.

Duh, the iron will and strength you talk about are reliant on countries like US supporting the UN proposals. Without the backing of the US, the UN is nothing but a toothless bulldog

 

[iapetus]

Not to mention, of course, the fact that the UN stood against the single largest power in the world these days when it came to the war on Iraq.

 

[maharg]

So, were all the countless millions of people outside the US in nearly every industrial nation on the planet also getting kickbacks? It's all well and good to say that there are opportunistic corrupt individuals who were benefiting from no war with Iraq, but that doesn't explain the POPULAR sentiment (even in the UK and Australia) against the war.

 

[teiresias]

The only reason there weren't any US names in the report concerning the oil-for-food scandal is because they were excised to protect the privacy of those people - amazing how that works, guess they didn't care about the other people's privacy though.

 

[Keio]

Its a representation of failed ideals still being pushed as legitimate.

Funny, but this description could be used about numerous wars and administrations.

What I really find worrying is the recent trend to value "iron will" over reason and "strength" over debate. Fascism is what that sounds like.

It's all well and good to say that there are opportunistic corrupt individuals who were benefiting from no war

Exactly. And we shouldn't forget that there are opportunistic corrupt individuals who are benefiting from war.

 

[Jak140]

Yeah, you're totally right Cooter, the UN should be disbanded because of this. And the the US government should have been disbanded after Watergate.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

because the side with the biggest sums of money wasn't going to pay them bribe money? you do understand the scheme was Saddam with his vast oil reserves would pay money to get sanctions lifted, the countries and people who had helped him would then have access to even more money as they sell him goods and services as preferred sellers?

What? Don't you use the internet?

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/features/iraq/

Here is an excerpt -

The spoils of war add up to more than capturing expansive palaces and luxury cars. As Marketplace reporters have discovered, not all of the $22 billion being spent to rebuild Iraq is going where it should. Who's watching the money as it streams through Baghdad? Just about no one, and bribes and black marketeering are rampant, witnesses say. A leading anti-corruption group claims that at least 20% of U.S. money spent in Iraq is being lost to corruption. From Halliburton subsidiaries charging double for gas, Iraqi officials and Arabic translators unrestrained from pocketing millions of dollars, or even members of the interim governing Council accusing each other of taking tens of millions in bribes.

Finish that up and get back to me. If they were to join the bandwagon they would have had an easier time hooking up with their old connections and keep the money flowing. Saddam wasn't personally showing up with big bags of cash that had $ signs on it. There is a boatload of money to be made by illeagal channels today right under the US's nose.

The U.N. loses out on money if the war starts, of course they are going to stay on his side till the end.

Fact check it's over he lost remember. You can't honestly believe that corrupt individuals are now getting a injection of pride. If these people were willing to support the murder of thousands for a rolex then why would it change now? By your arguement these are the most bungling batch of criminals since Home Alone.

 

[Ripclawe]

The only reason there weren't any US names in the report concerning the oil-for-food scandal is because they were excised to protect the privacy of those people - amazing how that works, guess they didn't care about the other people's privacy though.

Its because of the US privacy act, I want to know who the American companies were as well. I think there is master list floating about from earlier in the year with the names on it.

Without the backing of the US, the UN is nothing but a toothless bulldog

That proves its a flawed body if ONE country can make it fall apart all the time.

So, were all the countless millions of people outside the US in nearly every industrial nation on the planet also getting kickbacks? It's all well and good to say that there are opportunistic corrupt individuals who were benefiting from no war with Iraq, but that doesn't explain the POPULAR sentiment (even in the UK and Australia) against the war.

That has nothing to do with this. Its irrelevent.

Not to mention, of course, the fact that the UN stood against the single largest power in the world these days when it came to the war on Iraq.

The UN stands against America on almost everything just because, this is one of those times there is financial causes for that standing up to America.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

That proves its a flawed body if ONE country can make it fall apart all the time.

I know you hear this all the time but,

YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS!

Are you really comparing the US to Costa Rica?

The UN stands against America on almost everything just because, this is one of those times there is financial causes for that standing up to America.

There was no financial rational to stand up to America. It was financial sucide to to that.

 

[Ripclawe]

If they were to join the bandwagon they would have had an easier time hooking up with their old connections and keep the money flowing. Saddam wasn't personally showing up with big bags of cash that had $ signs on it. There is a boatload of money to be made by illeagal channels today right under the US's nose.

You are really not understand this scheme, read below.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1167782004

Fact check it's over he lost remember. You can't honestly believe that corrupt individuals are now getting a injection of pride. If these people were willing to support the murder of thousands for a rolex then why would it change now? By your arguement these are the most bungling batch of criminals since Home Alone.

No, typical UN and foreign officials looking to make a quick buck, just like darfur now is getting resistance from China to impose sanctions because they would lose out on oil. But its obvious you haven't read the report, go read the article above and then try again.

There was no financial rational to stand up to America. It was financial sucide to to that.

Okay, now I know you don't understand what was going on with the oil for food program to say that.

 

[maharg]

I'm sorry, but I think it's very relevant. You're using things like this as a means to slander countries that opposed the war, when in reality they were doing what their people wanted, whether or not someone at the top was benefiting.

 

[Pimpwerx]

The UN is only as strong as its member states. There is nothing inherently flawed with the UN. Well, not majorly at least. But its member states need to work together for it to work. When you have single-nation vetoes and unilateral actions going against UN decisions, then THAT devalues the UN. In other words, the problem with the UN is the US, France, Germany, etc.... Getting rid of it won't solve anyone's problems, but will set us back half a century. Yeah...progress. PEACE.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

I read the report and your final analysis is still make no sense. Again Saddam is not in power and will never be in power again. In 2004 What is the benefit to not working with the US?

In 2002 that analysis makes sense when they was a chance that there would be no war. Well guess what? After 2 years there was a war and Saddam was defeated all those back door deals are now null and void. Saddam isn't cutting checks from jail. So now they are in a worse postion. What is the benefit to the continued resistance if this is all about oil. If this is truly about oil then why wouldn't all the French start working to get a deal with the US so they could get their hands on some of the oil. You still haven't made it clear to me why they would forfit the oil after the fact.

 

[KingV]

So then why did this corrupt orgnization not get on the boat with the biggest checkbook? That doesn't make sense to stay on the "side" of a guy that isn't going to be able to pay you anymore. Explain why they did that. The UN's hate of the US is so great that they are going to forfit the only thing that from your view that motivates them?


There are corrupt individuals in EVERY govenmental body.

Sell me more spin!

I think you fail to underestimate how much money the Oil For Food bribery/scam is really talking about. We're talking about more money than Enron. This is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil sold dirt cheap to people willing to either funnel profits back to Saddam for a better deal or take say 10 million barrels sold at 1/2 market price (example, not sure of exact discount) to curry political favor in their respective countries and within the UN.

I don't think they stuck with it because of dislike for the US, but more like because they were making a shitload of money doing it. I don't think the US was offering illegal trading deals to support the Iraq War, so why would someone choose the US "side" over the one that pays a ton of bribe money for any reason other than ethical reasons?

 

[Dan]

The UN is only as strong as its member states. There is nothing inherently flawed with the UN. Well, not majorly at least. But its member states need to work together for it to work. When you have single-nation vetoes and unilateral actions going against UN decisions, then THAT devalues the UN. In other words, the problem with the UN is the US, France, Germany, etc.... Getting rid of it won't solve anyone's problems, but will set us back half a century. Yeah...progress. PEACE.

There are two general viewpoints here:
1. The US and its coalition was wrong in going into Iraq. The UN did nothing to stop this or punish participating nations.
2. The US and its coalition was right in going into Iraq. The UN did nothing to aid this effort.

I'm really not sure how anyone can sit there and say that the UN is a real great institution without massive inherent flaws. It's failed to do anything to either promote action or prohibit action countless times during its existence.

And your argument about getting rid of the UN is bullshit because it works under the assumption that nothing would replace it. No one goes around saying that getting rid of the League of Nations was a major setback to world politics now do they?

The problem with the UN isn't the US, France and Germany. The problem is the POWER that the UN gives those nations. The security council is just completely whacked and based in a world 60 years old.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

I don't think they stuck with it because of dislike for the US, but more like because they were making a shitload of money doing it. I don't think the US was offering illegal trading deals to support the Iraq War, so why would someone choose the US "side" over the one that pays a ton of bribe money for any reason other than ethical reasons?

Well thanks for somebody anwsering. Well this is my point as you are saying before the war they were making as you call it a "shitload" of money. Well once the war started they knew the "shitload" was going to come to an end quick, fast, and in a hurry. No then push foward a year later now they are getting no money or no oil. Why keep up the ruse?

 

[Ripclawe]

You're using things like this as a means to slander countries that opposed the war, when in reality they were doing what their people wanted, whether or not someone at the top was benefiting.

The reality is the population sentiment has nothing to do with this oil for food program scheme. Countries on the security council were against any sort of war, NOT because of public sentiment, that's just a nice bonus, it was because they were getting paid off, this is not something new. This has been known for a while and nothing was done about it.

Look even Kofi decided earlier this year said the U.N. would be powerless about it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117939,00.html

The program was launched to help Iraqis cope with U.N. sanctions imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Saddam's government decided on the goods it wanted, who should provide them and who could buy Iraqi oil -- but a U.N. committee monitored the contracts.

"If the Iraqi government has smuggled oil and done all sorts of things, I don't think it is fair to lump it all together and blame the U.N. and the Secretariat because there are things that were definitely beyond our control -- not only the Secretariat but even the member states," Annan said.

Now realize, Annan was the one who set the whole thing up in the first place and the U.N. was in charge of it.

 

[doncale]

the UN is fucking D00000000med

 

[PS2 KID]

^^^^^^

IAWTP

 

[maharg]

The problem with the UN isn't the US, France and Germany. The problem is the POWER that the UN gives those nations. The security council is just completely whacked and based in a world 60 years old.

Let's ask Ripclawe what he would think of a UN without veto rights for superpowers.

Rip?

 

[kablooey]

Duh, the iron will and strength you talk about are reliant on countries like US supporting the UN proposals. Without the backing of the US, the UN is nothing but a toothless bulldog

Exactly. The reason the League of Nations fell in the first place was because of a lack of support from the US. Sounds very similar to what's going on right now, huh?

 

[Pimpwerx]

There are two general viewpoints here:
1. The US and its coalition was wrong in going into Iraq. The UN did nothing to stop this or punish participating nations.
2. The US and its coalition was right in going into Iraq. The UN did nothing to aid this effort.

I'm really not sure how anyone can sit there and say that the UN is a real great institution without massive inherent flaws. It's failed to do anything to either promote action or prohibit action countless times during its existence.

And your argument about getting rid of the UN is bullshit because it works under the assumption that nothing would replace it. No one goes around saying that getting rid of the League of Nations was a major setback to world politics now do they?

The problem with the UN isn't the US, France and Germany. The problem is the POWER that the UN gives those nations. The security council is just completely whacked and based in a world 60 years old.

I agree with you, but I don't see those aree major flaws. They can simply change those aspects of it. If it must carry a different monicker, then fine, but the whole UNITED Nations concept will carry through. I guess it's League of Nations for some of the older folk. :lol Yeah, the power distribution is a huge problem, and it needs to be corrected. But then again, the larger nations just won't sign up b/c they don't want to relinquish power...ever. PEACE.

 

[Dilbert]

A point which is missed in all of this is that the (poorly phrased) "global test" is not synonymous with "going to the United Nations." The principle ought to be that America should carefully consider its foreign policy since our decisions have consequences for ourselves, and for others. It's not tied to any particular instatiation of a global governing council, and not dependent on the integrity (or lack thereof) of any such organization. It's just COMMON SENSE.

This whole concept of "we're America, we should just do what we want, to hell with everyone else" is incredibly arrogant and counterproductive. It's the rabid antithesis of isolationism -- now, EVERYTHING is our business, and our business to strongarm as we see fit.

 

[KingV]

Well thanks for somebody anwsering. Well this is my point as you are saying before the war they were making as you call it a "shitload" of money. Well once the war started they knew the "shitload" was going to come to an end quick, fast, and in a hurry. No then push foward a year later now they are getting no money or no oil. Why keep up the ruse?

Well, they can't very well say "Oh, well we were just doing it for the money." And they may very well agree in principle that we should have went to war in Iraq anyway, but this definitely does not exclude them from judgement by being in bed with Saddam and then speaking up for them. If I was a game reviewer, and gave a game a great review score and it later turned out that the publisher gave me $5000 to give the game a great review, it's still a conflict of interest and difficult to take my opinion seriously, even if I really did like the game anyway. I don't think there's any real argument to be made that let's them off the hook for this. We're talking more money than Enron! The Oil for Food scam lined a number of people's pockets with millions of dollars out of Saddam's oil fields. MAybe they're pissed because their source of money dried up, who knows why they continue to be against the Iraq war? There's no way to tell, all we really know is that certain people from three of the main countries that challenged the Iraq war in the UN were bribed via oil for food money to speak out against it. The ins and outs of exactly why they accepted a bribe are certainly irrelevant, as this is a huge conflict of interest regardless of their personal opinions, or what they would have done without receiving a bribe.

 

[Azih]

The Duelfer report said Benon Sevan, the former chief of the U.N. program, is among dozens of people who allegedly received secret oil vouchers, with Saddam personally approving the list of recipients

Are we all missing the word allegedly in here? ALLEGEDLY PEOPLE, ACCUSATIONS DO NOT EQUATE TO FACT!


...

What the HOI happened to innocent until proven guilty?

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Well, they can't very well say "Oh, well we were just doing it for the money." And they may very well agree in principle that we should have went to war in Iraq anyway, but this definitely does not exclude them from judgement by being in bed with Saddam and then speaking up for them.

We excused ourselves for being in bed with Iraq.

If I was a game reviewer, and gave a game a great review score and it later turned out that the publisher gave me $5000 to give the game a great review, it's still a conflict of interest and difficult to take my opinion seriously, even if I really did like the game anyway.

Let's take your example a bit further let's say that Nintendo gave you $5000 to give all their games a good reviews and bash Sony games. Now let's say Nintendo goes bankrupt or gets bought out by Microsoft. Sony says "Hey if you review for PSNation we will pay you $5000" Now then at this point what is your incentive for not working for Sony. Why continue to front for Nintendo when it doesn't exist. What you are trying to tell me is Nintendo greased your palm one time and now you are unable to take money from anyone else?

MAybe they're pissed because their source of money dried up, who knows why they continue to be against the Iraq war? There's no way to tell, all we really know is that certain people from three of the main countries that challenged the Iraq war in the UN were bribed via oil for food money to speak out against it. The ins and outs of exactly why they accepted a bribe are certainly irrelevant, as this is a huge conflict of interest regardless of their personal opinions, or what they would have done without receiving a bribe.

Again you are not seeing my point. IF someone is corrupt as you claim then why would they have principles about who they work for? It wouldn't matter if it is the US or Iraq. Someone who is working for bribes is going to craft themselves so they can get into a position to make more money. My point is Saddam's regime is done there is no financial incentive to keep up the chrade. Every govenment is capable of spin.

Case in point the US swore by convicted embezzler and Iraqi defector Ahmed Chalabi before the war and once he no longer fit the USs needs they hung him out to pasture and washed their hands of this goon. Are the French unable to wash their hands of a few bad apples to get into the oil money? You talk as if they had allegience to Saddam. They didn't they had allegience to money. A good criminal, an international criminal is going to stick with the money. Pardon my French but, you are a fucking fool to think that there are no US individuals or US corporations that aren't seeing major kickbacks in Iraq today. Corruption is the name of the game.


What I think is some people were getting cash in hand but, I also think that there are some people in the govenment and the people that thought the War was generally a bad idea.

 

[KingV]

Are we all missing the word allegedly in here? ALLEGEDLY PEOPLE, ACCUSATIONS DO NOT EQUATE TO FACT!


...

What the HOI happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Grasping at straws. Nobody's talking about throwing these people in jail without a trial, but the evidence of foul play is there, it would be foolish to ignore it completely.

 

[MrPing1000]

usa helped undermine UN by negating it when going to war with Iraq

Britain and France underminded League Of Nations by making deals outside the organisation (partition of Abyssinia) By Anschluss it was totally ignored

 

[Stele]

This is a sadass, oblique attempt at justifying American unilateralism, but rest assured almost nothing can whitewash the disaster Iraq has become.

 

[KingV]

The UN has been basically unimportant for a long time. The idea is good, but the implementation sucks. Imagine our country if TX, CA, NY, NJ, and VA could veto all other state's decisions. Now, imagine that Kansas was in charge of the Automotive industry, and Alaska was in charge of Corn Production. Oh, and each state (besides the 5 super states) gets exactly the same equal vote, regardless of how many people live there.

Nevermind the abject absurdity of allowing non-democratic nations into a democratic institution. How can anyone honestly take Libya or Cuba seriously when they claim to speak for their people? They're not beholden to their citizenry at all, only to the dictators that currently run their countries. So now, you also have countries that have just as much vote as democratic countries where the decision ultimately just boils down to what one guy wants to do.

The UN is the Carnival of the Absurd, and I don't think its opinions should weigh to heavily on the minds of any nation, to be honest, because the UN lacks the willpower and ability to follow up on many of its promises, and takes forever and a day to come up with a decision to act in the first place.

 

[KingV]

We excused ourselves for being in bed with Iraq.



Let's take your example a bit further let's say that Nintendo gave you $5000 to give all their games a good reviews and bash Sony games. Now let's say Nintendo goes bankrupt or gets bought out by Microsoft. Sony says "Hey if you review for PSNation we will pay you $5000" Now then at this point what is your incentive for not working for Sony. Why continue to front for Nintendo when it doesn't exist. What you are trying to tell me is Nintendo greased your palm one time and now you are unable to take money from anyone else?




Again you are not seeing my point. IF someone is corrupt as you claim then why would they have principles about who they work for? It wouldn't matter if it is the US or Iraq. Someone who is working for bribes is going to craft themselves so they can get into a position to make more money. My point is Saddam's regime is done there is no financial incentive to keep up the chrade. Every govenment is capable of spin.

Case in point the US swore by convicted embezzler and Iraqi defector Ahmed Chalabi before the war and once he no longer fit the USs needs they hung him out to pasture and washed their hands of this goon. Are the French unable to wash their hands of a few bad apples to get into the oil money? You talk as if they had allegience to Saddam. They didn't they had allegience to money. A good criminal, an international criminal is going to stick with the money. Pardon my French but, you are a fucking fool to think that there are no US individuals or US corporations that aren't seeing major kickbacks in Iraq today. Corruption is the name of the game.


What I think is some people were getting cash in hand but, I also think that there are some people in the govenment and the people that thought the War was generally a bad idea.

Your argument is based on the idea that 1) the US is offering illegal bribes to foreign officials to support the Iraq War, mind you this assertion is based on the assumption that the world is a corrupt place, you have no evidence supporting this.

2) The same people that accepted bribes from Saddam are in a position to receive these bribes from the USA assuming they do exist.

3) That these people, assuming that the bribes exist and that they are receiving them, still have the ability to shape national policy.

In my mind, your argument is built on a pretty shaky foundation. I also believe it's too general. Saddam wasn't exactly bribing Jaques Chirac directly, but hey, what if he were to offer a few illegal lucrative contracts to top oil companies as long as they were willing to you know, talk to the French government on their behalf, or close associates of the President, or a couple people in the legislative body just to you know, put in a good word for them.

Who's to say these people are in any position to benefit off of the US presence in Iraq, especially as most of the countries in question are excluded from Iraqi rebuilding contracts by the US government (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3676000/)? How are these imaginary US bribes made, under what mechanism?

 

[Triumph]

Cooter is still an idiot, but I actually agree with him for once.

The United Nations is the most useless organization on the face of the planet. It SHOULD be abolished, but where Cooter and I will no doubt differ is that it should be replaced with an organization where one nation can't stop the will of the world. That's the case right now with the idiotic structure of the security council.

 

[MetatronM]

There are two general viewpoints here:
1. The US and its coalition was wrong in going into Iraq. The UN did nothing to stop this or punish participating nations.
2. The US and its coalition was right in going into Iraq. The UN did nothing to aid this effort.

I'm really not sure how anyone can sit there and say that the UN is a real great institution without massive inherent flaws. It's failed to do anything to either promote action or prohibit action countless times during its existence.

And your argument about getting rid of the UN is bullshit because it works under the assumption that nothing would replace it. No one goes around saying that getting rid of the League of Nations was a major setback to world politics now do they?

The problem with the UN isn't the US, France and Germany. The problem is the POWER that the UN gives those nations. The security council is just completely whacked and based in a world 60 years old.

I can agree more or less with this position. A functioning international body that had some power and actually worked would be a very good thing for the world. At the very, very least the UN needs massive reform, if not just scrapping the whole thing and going back to the drawing board. But there needs to be something. Just because we haven't gotten it to work quite right yet doesn't mean it's not something that would be very important for the world if it did. We need to figure out how to make it work.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6194795/

We need to get rid of this piece of shit organization.


Gee, what a coincidence, these three were all heavily opposed to removing Saddam.

Biggest story no ones talking about.

It is being talked about (and you'll see Bush pull it in tonight's debate, guaranteed), but I would say the reason it's not everywhere is because it only really confirms what everybody pretty much knew already. We didn't know the details, but we knew those countries had monetary ties and that their reasons for not supporting the war were based more on that fact than they were on policy. So it's not like some big shocker. Just as we've known for a year and a half now that Saddam didn't have any WMDs, we knew for just as long (and really longer than that actually) that those other countries weren't going to war with us for reasons other than policy.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Your argument is based on the idea that 1) the US is offering illegal bribes to foreign officials to support the Iraq War, mind you this assertion is based on the assumption that the world is a corrupt place, you have no evidence supporting this.

No, you have misunderstood me. I have not claimed that the US is offering illegal bribes what I am claiming is that the US is offering money (ala contracts) to do work. Where is that shakey? That being said the rest of your points are moot.

My main argurement is that

1. Some money is better than none.
2. If you are willing to work for bribes then why would you not work for legal money?


It appears to me that you are saying these individuals with connections to the oil industry (a totally leagal industry last time I checked) are unwilling to modify their corrupt principles to work with the US to get a steady check they would rather get 0 dollars than kiss up and get back into Iraq in some capacity (I'm not speaking governments I'm speaking corporations).

 

[Phoenix]

because the side with the biggest sums of money wasn't going to pay them bribe money?

The US bribes UN member countries for votes all the time...

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

The US bribes UN member countries for votes all the time...

You're wrong Phoenix! The US is incapable of bribery.

 

[Phoenix]

I don't believe anyone can at this very moment on this forum come up with a new model for the UN that would actually work.

Its one thing to say 'its an organization that has terrible flaws' and its another thing to say 'it needs to be replaced' - replaced with what? The only reason the UN works at all is because the large member nations with Veto powers 'usually' listen to it and participate in the process. It is a large forum for all member nations to have a seat at the world table - AND to get things that they need by having their votes 'paid for' by larger nations. A forum for all nations is very important because it allows people to air their grievances, something that people for whatever reason feel isn't important.

"Will, action, and response" are all used by people who think the UN itself isn't comprised of diverse member nations and is somehow 'above' all nations. It isn't and it can't be, mainly because there is no equality amongst nations. The US isn't going to sit at the table in an organization where it has the same voice and power as Cuba - we might as well get that out of our minds now. The only way to build this 'ideal' organization is to have all players on equal footing... and that's not something we have today.

Sure the UN is slow... by nature ANY collaborative organization where you have lots of people who have different goals and manners of dealing with things is going to be slow. I used to believe that removing veto powers from the primary member nations would be a solution, but the more I've come to understand how the UN works - the less I believe the UN would actually function if there were some attempt to bring parity to the member nations.

 

[Phoenix]

You're wrong Phoenix! The US is incapable of bribery.

You'd better put a smiley on the end of that

There are many issues in the UN for which many voting member countries have no vested interest. These votes are 'obtainable' by any side willing to meet with and sway that country to a particular side. Even right before the Iraq invasion there were countries that the US, France and Germany were meeting with to 'influence' their opinion. "How about an aid package, or a lessening of sanctions, or some troop training, etc. If you help us with this vote, we will support you on issue X that is of value to you but means nothing to us."

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]