This is kinda confusing.

[Lizking]

He said that in nearly seven years of operation, the Programme had been required to meet "an almost impossible series of challenges", using some $46 billion of Iraqi export earnings on behalf of the Iraqi people. Under the Programme, nine different United Nations agencies, programmes and funds developed and managed humanitarian operations in Iraq, meeting the needs of the civilian population across some 24 economic and social sectors.


Now, show me a UN report that will explain the distribution of those 46 Billion dollars, Mr. Scholtz.  There is a a saying around here, 'mongst us Southerners, something about rice bowls to protect, that would lead me to beleive that the UN should not be administering anything that is paid for by the country it claims to be assisting.

In a statement to the Security Council (20 November 2003), he noted that the Programme, which closed on 21 November was the only humanitarian programme ever to have been funded entirely from resources belonging to the nation it was designed to help.

http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/

[Lizking]

143 million dollars.  The UN would have no interest in continuing to shake that money tree would they?

It is not that they stole the money; it is the fact that it is a business, not a charity when the the recipient pays for the service.  There is no incentive to solve the problem, savy?

[Vulcan]

I'll butt in here re the UN with a 'ground level ' point of view.

My wife never left Cambodia til she was 23. She lived in Battambang province. She and her mother survived the Khmer Rouge (lost her father and sister). Her attitude towards the UN was that there is widespeed corruption, its a very matter of fact attitude, ie not judgemental, just "oh yeah, they took bribes to look the other way. Some of the UN guys would pay good money for a young virgin" - stuff like that. Considering the corruption in Cambodia most people there regard that as normal behaviour.

The UN is like any other frontline organisation, it has good and bad people. If you think that UN inspectors wouldn't/don't take bribes then you lead a very sheltered life.

[Lizking]

It is not a charity, but when the same country that supplies the money also recieves the aid, that is a serious confilict of interest.  Halliburton could do the same thing more efficiently.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by GScholz
The UN is a huge organization. It has just as many bad apples as any other huge organization, but what is the point of all this?

The point is the UN lacks balls, is falible, its accurarcy in reporting inspections etc is questionable, and isn't really making much of a differfence as it used too. Take away the UN and Austrialia and NZ would still have sent peacekeepers into East Timor for example.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Vulcan
Take away the UN and Austrialia and NZ would still have sent peacekeepers into East Timor for example.

Yep. Because them that do, do. Them that can't..... just talk.

[Toad]

Well, it the orders are "guard the warehouse" then the Dutch might be able to handle it.

However, if the orders are "stop the slaughter" everybody knows the Blues should be left on the shelf.

I suspect that's what burns the most.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by GScholz
Yes, but then it would have been an invasion. The UN flag gives troops a perception of neutrality (real or imagined).

Sorry, but at no time were the peacekeepers in East Timor perceived as 'neutral' by the Indonesians. In fact not many people see the UN as neutral anymore.

[Toad]

Show me where it's "ad hominem"?

Do you even know what that means?

[AKIron]

Originally posted by GScholz
Naw it wasn't a personal attack. Just like saying the US army did nothing but kill babies in Vietnam ... to a Vietnam vet.

I bet that would "burn" a bit too.

Not the same at all. More like saying many countries stopped Hussein's reign of terror while some were left on the shelf.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by GScholz
Are you a vet Iron? (I think you are) Have you seen a massacre and been unable to do anything about it?

Yes and no. I can sympathize though. Why were you unable to act?

[Toad]

He's not Dutch. End of tearful protest.

BTW, I am a VietNam era vet. Your comment merely makes me laugh; outrageous BS usually does.

[AKIron]

I thought perhaps you were gonna say it wasn't your mandate as directed by the UN. The same UN you seem to place so much faith in.

[Toad]

It wasn't all artillery. Of course, if you were there, you know that, don't you?

So you shouldn't need to read this. Don't worry, it's not from an "evil imperialist Yanqui".


The Betrayal of Srebrenica

"Hundreds of Muslims were killed and many more were wounded. Many were driven berserk by the assault and eye-witness accounts described how people were so horrified that they committed suicide to avoid capture. Many who were captured or surrendered, among them the wounded, were summarily executed. One eyewitness described how more than 100 captive Muslim men, women and children were slowly slaughtered by a group of Serbian soldiers using knives. Witnesses also saw hundreds of Muslim men buried in bass graves, some buried alive."

Indeed, what can one do against knives?

[Toad]

I guess this really is no different than his basic inability to admit Libya was in violation of the NPT, despite Libya itself admitting it.

I think I understand the reason he's so touchy on this UN subject and so anti-US.

So, I'll stand down.

Nonetheless, there was no ad hominem if he's really from Norway and not Dutch. Come to think of it, if he were Dutch it still wouldn't be ad hominem as what happened is a simple historical fact.