Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DoctorYO on February 03, 2005, 11:09:52 AM
-
"(CNN) -- Documents obtained by CNN reveal the United States knew about, and even condoned, embargo-breaking oil sales by Saddam Hussein's regime, and did so to shore up alliances with Iraq's neighbors."
"How is it that you stand on a moral footing to go after the U.N. when they're responsible for 15 percent maybe of the ill-gotten gains, and we were part and complicit of him getting 85 percent of the money?" Menendez asked."
i'm personally amused by all the attacks by some of the zealots on this board discrediting the UN when we had a active hand in it ourselves... hence hypocrisy eats hypocrisy..
get the full article.....
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/02/iraq.oil.smuggle/index.html
makes you wonder what other embarrassing crap is going to find its way out of the black hole which is our current and past executive branches.. (both bush and clinton...)
These dummies are using 1950-60's politico in the internet age of bits bytes and fact checking .....
and we wonder why the Euro's, Asians South Americans, Aussy's etc... call us on our bull **** all the time.. go figure... deductive reasoning maybe....
DoctorYo
-
"These dummies are using 1950-60's politico in the internet age of bits bytes and fact checking ..... "
:aok
-
No one cares if Jordan and Turkey bought oil from Saddam or who knew about it. I sure don't. Now if that article said something about 'pay-offs to Clinton's daughter' were the reward given for the Clinton's blind eye then you might have something.
Kofi Annan’s son admits oil dealing (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1462576,00.html)
I doubt we could have stopped illegal oil being sold to any of countries bordering Saddam even if we wanted to.
You mention 'deductive reasoning'. How does anything you typed or anything in that article validate the UN or US membership in it?
FYI, Kofi Annan was the UN head of peacekeeping during the Rwandan massacre, heck of a job he did there.
and we wonder why a good number of Americans look at the UN with contempt and suspicion and call them on their bull****...
-
Originally posted by Wotan
No one cares if Jordan and Turkey bought oil from Saddam or who knew about it. I sure don't. Now if that article said something about 'pay-offs to Clinton's daughter' were the reward given for the Clinton's blind eye then you might have something.
Kofi Annan’s son admits oil dealing (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1462576,00.html)
I doubt we could have stopped illegal oil being sold to any of countries bordering Saddam even if we wanted to.
You mention 'deductive reasoning'. How does anything you typed or anything in that article validate the UN or US membership in it?
FYI, Kofi Annan was the UN head of peacekeeping during the Rwandan massacre, heck of a job he did there.
and we wonder why a good number of Americans look at the UN with contempt and suspicion and call them on their bull****...
What we have always wanted was a full accounting of the problem. If there are skeletons in the closet, I dont care who's they are as longs as its uncovered and corrected.
-
Wasn't Bill Clinton in the Whitehouse during the majority of Oil for Food program years?
TOJO
-
Originally posted by Wotan
FYI, Kofi Annan was the UN head of peacekeeping during the Rwandan massacre, heck of a job he did there.
For Your information, USA was still in the SC that dicides whether to bring it up or not. And also what kind of messures to be undertaken.
Kofi Annan has no saying, hes the Chairman, no more nothing less.
Casting dirt on him does´nt free USA from its responsiblitys in the UN as a permanent SC member.
Resonsible for the UN peacekeeping is the Security Council.
If you disagree, I might need to bring quotes. I hate this, read up on how the UN works by studying the Charter of UN.
UN CHARTER (http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasicunchart.htm)
-
Search Rwanda don't just make guesses.
Peace Keepers were already in Rwanda, French and Belgium...
So you need read up the points being made, not on some Charter that you run waving like it means anything to me...
It's hardly the point being made...
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/rwanda4.htm
-
The Charter of UN means all to the work of the UN, sorry.
Read up better and stop BS away the responsibility of USA as an permanent member of SC.
(You may deny this, but still, it is pure facts. And it may mean nothing to you, but it does´nt change facts)
Dont watermelon in your own nest.
-
Go find a soap box some where else.
If you can't follow a point from A to B just shut up. What you have said in this thread has nothing to do with the point of the original poster or my following replies.
You seem lost, go curl up with your UN Charter and see if it can point you the right way.
-
So you found the hard way that USA was infact responsible for the UN "NO-action" in Rwanda?
Poor guy, must be devistating to have your "facts" and your simple view of world politics, shreded up like that.
And don´t take it to hard, it´s only a BBS, not national Media.
People will not laugh at you when you are walking down the street,,,,,,,, Relax
:lol
Article 24
1. In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.
-
Patrone,
I believe what Wotan is trying to say is , that this particular thread is about DoctorYo's assertion , that the U.S. is once again to blame for something.
The Rwanda thing should be for another thread.
Just a point there;)
-
You don't even know what you are talking about. Peace keepers were already in Rwanda, they did nothing to help. They stood by and watched. This fact has nothing to with the US or UN SC or the UN charter or any such non-sense.
All the situation required was action on the part of those troops and the command structure already on the ground in Rwanda. It did not require action by the US or the SC.
You are just making things up as you go.
You haven't any 'facts' just left wing one world egalitarian non-sense. You can't follow a discussion and you can't make a coherent point.
-
Thank you Redtop.
But by mentioning Rwanda, Wotan made it an issue.
And the view from the General US citizen about UN is very distorted. No one makes anything withing UN without the blessing from USA or the 4 other permanent members of SC.
To blame the Secretary General, Kofi Annan for anything else then maybe "corruption" is absurd. To blame him as responsible for the Genocide in Rwanda, just mirrors how "double standard" of morality, poisons the US General Public view of UN.
Truth does´nt really count.
21 of April 1994
The U.N. Security Council votes unanimously to withdraw most of the UNAMIR troops, cutting the force from 2,500 to 270.
To make it more to be inline of the original posting, it also mirrors the statement from DoctorYO
i'm personally amused by all the attacks by some of the zealots on this board discrediting the UN when we had a active hand in it ourselves... hence hypocrisy eats hypocrisy..
-
The accusations against Kofi Annan don't come originate with me or the US. As I said you just don't what you are talking about.
You are just making things up as you go.
Type Kofi Annan / Peacekeepers / Rwanda in goggle and you will see who accuses who of what.
UN chief's Rwanda genocide regret (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3573229.stm)
The United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has said he could and should have done more to stop the genocide in Rwanda 10 years ago.
Kofi's own mouth
"I believed at that time that I was doing my best," he said.
"But I realised after the genocide that there was more that I could and should have done to sound the alarm and rally support."
Kofi Annan was aware of Tutsis' peril (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4621/rwanda1.html)
Annan was the head of U.N. peacekeeping operations on Jan. 11, 1994, when the commander of U.N. forces in Rwanda, Maj. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, warned the world body that the Kigali government was planning to slaughter Tutsis and said he was making plans to confiscate weapons.
Dallaire, a Canadian, was in charge of 450 U.N. peacekeepers in the Rwandan capital.
In the fax sent to U.N. Headquarters in New York, Dallaire quoted a senior Rwandan security official as saying he had been ordered to register all Tutsis in Kigali for the purpose, he suspected, of ``their extermination.''
Annan's office ordered Dallaire to neither protect the informant nor confiscate the arms.
Annan was aware of the order, said his aide, Iqbal Riza, who signed the response.
``I was responsible,'' Riza, who is still Annan's deputy, told the New Yorker when shown a copy of the order. ``This is not to say that Mr. Annan was oblivious of what was going on. No. Part of my responsibility was to keep him informed.''
I can go on and on...
Even the left in the US, who are UN'ofiles aren't happy with Kofi..
By the HON. CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY (http://www.usasurvival.org/kofi-crimes.shtml)
(http://www.house.gov/mckinney/images/photo_mckinney.jpg)
She is a Democrat and represents Georgia's 4th District and made the the linked statement In the US House of Representatives on 16.11.01
Mr. Speaker, Kofi Annan and the United Nations are stained with the blood of millions of dead people
Mr. defender of Kofi's honor has no clue of what happened in Rwanda and just waves his stupid UN Charter around as if it mattered.
-
Ok DoctorYo, I want you to try something for me.
Read the very very first sentence of the post. Also take a look at where this news item is printed.
Now, lastly, remember some of the nicknames your news source has.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
The accusations against Kofi Annan don't come originate with me or the US. As I said you just don't what you are talking about.
You are just making things up as you go.
Type Kofi Annan / Peacekeepers / Rwanda in goggle and you will see who accuses who of what.
Kofi's own mouth
Mr. defender of Kofi's honor has no clue of what happened in Rwanda and just waves his stupid UN Charter around as if it mattered.
Early warnings!
A January 11, 1994 telegram from General Roméo Dallaire, commander of the U.N. peacekeeping force, to his superiors was only one, if now the most famous, warning of massive slaughter being prepared in Rwanda. From November 1993 to April 1994, there were dozens of other signals, including an early December letter to Dallaire from high-ranking military officers warning of planned massacres; a press release by a bishop declaring that guns were being distributed to civilians; reports by intelligence agents of secret meetings to coordinate attacks on Tutsi, opponents of Hutu Power and U.N. peacekeepers; and public incitations to murder in the press and on the radio. Foreign observers did not track every indicator, but representatives of Belgium, France, and the U.S. were well-informed about most of them. In January, an analyst of U.S. Central Intelligence Agency knew enough to predict that as many as half a million persons might die in case of renewed conflict and, in February, Belgian authorities already feared a genocide. France, the power most closely linked to Habyarimana, presumably knew at least as much as the other two.
In the early months of 1994, Dallaire repeatedly requested a stronger mandate, more troops and more materiel. The secretariat staff, perhaps anxious to avoid displeasing such major powers as the U.S., failed to convey to the council the gravity of warnings of crisis and the urgency of Dallaire’s requests. The paucity of information meant little to the U.S. and France, which were well-informed in any case, but it led other council members with no sources of information in Rwanda to misjudge the gravity of the crisis. Instead of strengthening the mandate and sending reinforcements, the Security Council made only small changes in the rate of troop deployment, measures too limited to affect the development of the situation.
When the violence began, the secretary-general’s special representative, Roger Booh-Booh minimized both the extent and the organized nature of the slayings. Meanwhile Dallaire was fairly shouting the need for immediate and decisive action. Given the two points of view, the staff generally presented the more reassuring assessment to council members.
By late April, representatives of the Czech Republic, Spain, New Zealand and Argentina sought information beyond that provided by the secretariat and became convinced that the slaughter was a genocide that must be stopped. They pushed the Security Council to support a new peacekeeping operation with a stronger mandate to protect civilians. Had these non-permanent members been fully informed earlier—such as on January 11—they might have found their voices in time to have called for firm measures to avert the violence.
Economics??
As preparations for further conflict grew in February 1994, the Belgians were sufficiently worried by the deteriorating situation to ask for a stronger mandate, but they were rebuffed by the U.S. and the United Kingdom, which refused to support any measure that might add to the cost of the operation.
The concern for economy prevailed even after massive slaughter had taken place.
When a second peacekeeping operation was being mounted in May and June, U.N. member states were slow to contribute equipment needed for the troops. The U.S. government was rightly ridiculed for requiring seven weeks to negotiate the lease for armored personnel carriers, but other members did not do much better. The U.K., for example, provided only fifty trucks.
Further more, I cant quote more then this from the Speach in Rwanda 15 march 1998, By US President Bill Clinton, as it seems to have "disapered" from US Goverments official files.
....the international community, together with nations in Africa, must bear its share of responsibility for this tragedy, as well. We did not act quickly enough after the killing began. We should not have allowed the refugee camps to become safe havens for the killers. We did not immediately call these crimes by their rightful name: genocide. We cannot change the past. But we can and must do everything in our power to help you build a future without fear, and full of hope....
Chew on that Chewbakka.
Before you breath more about this particulare even, I sugest you get some facts.
You don´t know **** and you will never know ****, Sorry.
By the way, thanks for honouring a Scandinavian God with you nick.....
-
>>These dummies are using 1950-60's politico in the internet age of bits bytes and fact checking .....
<<
As others have posted
:aok
Some take longer to catch on.
Its different now, just different
-
Chew on that Chewbakka.
Chew on what? Nothing you just posted means anything in regards to my previous reply.
Not one thing. I will break it down for you again but I doubt you have the mental capacity to follow along...
French and Belgian troops were on the ground, some 5000 Peace keepers at the start of the massacre. Kofi agreed to them pulling out after some Belgian soldiers were killed. Eventually Dallaire with was left with almost no troops.
The accusations against Kofi have nothing to do with what the UN SC or the US or any UN member did or didn't do. The fact is if Kofi had done his job earlier (as he himself admits) then the outcome might have been different.
Annan's office ordered Dallaire to neither protect the informant nor confiscate the arms.
[/b]
Once again you are unable to follow a simple point from A to B. Do you have a CO2 detector in your house? Maybe with the colder weather you locked yourself in and CO2 is ruining your mind. Open a window or quickly move outside into the fresh air.
Unless you can make a coherent reasonable reply based on what is actually being discussed then I will leave you to your left wing Euro-trash non-sense.
Just deal with the subject at hand with out trying to shift the discussion else where. If you can't discuss the subject then just shut up.
-
Ouch, hurts dos´nt it? :lol
-
what a bore...what a tool. you just picked the crap side to stand with yo. thats all.
Your all tools, Im a tool too. Its all garbage and no one here and no country with the exception of the few you never heard of are on any sort of moral high ground on any issue. You just pick your sides and either fight it out or run and hide.
Like Boyington said: "Show me a hero and I'll prove hes' a bum."
What a bunch of self oscillators :aok
-
Wotan, the U.S. has a big say in the SC, K. Annan does not...
there were no INTEREST for any whatsoever country to STOP the Rwandan massacre...
the UN the U.S. and all others are to BLAME...
remember we said 'NEVER AGAIN' after the Holocaust...
but believe me, if there was OIL in Rwanda, no massacre would of takin place:)
-
canada did NOTHING to stop the bloodshed!
-
Wotan, the U.S. has a big say in the SC, K. Annan does not...
there were no INTEREST for any whatsoever country to STOP the Rwandan massacre...
the UN the U.S. and all others are to BLAME...
remember we said 'NEVER AGAIN' after the Holocaust...
but believe me, if there was OIL in Rwanda, no massacre would of takin place
Another person ignorant of the facts speaking about a subject not in discussion.
Troops were already on the ground in Rwanda when the massacre started, they left. Kofi admits his errors why can't you?
Belgium pulled its peace keepers, the French did nothing. The UN or SC or whatever organization you wish to point out had nothing to do with that.
There's oil in Sudan, that's why the French aren't doing anything meaningful there. So if you are suggesting that if oil was in Rwanda the US would have sent troops and that only US peace keepers and troops can get the job done then I would agree with you.
From the Dutch in Bosnia, to Belgians in Rwanda, to French inaction in Sudan EU 'peace keeping' doesn't inspire much confidence.
The French Canadian Dallaire as head of the troops in Rwanda failed as well. He followed the orders from Kofi's office and sat on his hands while people were massacred.
You can blame the US or UN SC or the bogey man for all I care but any way you want to argue it it just shows how worthless the UN unless the US takes control of the situation. Absent US leadership and troops nothing gets accomplished. The US can do that on its own.
If that's the point you wish to argue then go for it, a lot folks would agree.
-
Seems like the "Woodman" digs himself even deeper in the pile of dirt....:lol
-
According to the UN there was no genocide, so they don’t have to bear the blame that way.
http://www.newsday.com/mynews/ny-world014131518feb01,0,480390.story
February 1, 2005
UN: NO GENOCIDE IN SUDAN. A United Nations commission concluded .......but it stopped short of calling the violence genocide,
-
Oh :lol :lol :lol
Reminds me of Kruschev's televized meeting with Nixon.
Wotan's right, the UN had sufficient manpower in rwanda to prevent what was happening, but the belgian's withdrew at the first sign of conflict. And no other members of the UN did a damn thing except fascilitate the genocide, including the US. The only UN personnel that got any good done were the ones that disobeyed Annan. In the end, the UN personnel that stayed in rwanda couldn't even get the UN to supply them with body bags for the UN's own dead personell. 800,000 were dead and the UN was still pontificating the definition of genocide.
The US was probably the only UN member that would've put it's men in harms way. But that wasn't going to happen under the Clinton admin.
If the US doesn't lead the initiative the UN is indecisive and ineffectual. If the US does take the initiative, the UN is hindering and adverse.
But you went off on some irrelevant antiamerican tangent.. again.
-
Read again Suave:
When the UN troops wanted reinforcments this is what happend:
21 of April 1994
The U.N. Security Council votes unanimously to withdraw most of the UNAMIR troops, cutting the force from 2,500 to 270.
(USA voted for the pullback of UN troops!)
Then USA and UK argueed about the coasts, delaying the second deployment about 7 weeks.
Albright delayed the gathering of the SC for several days. The whole affair smells very much. The Fiasco from Somalia made USA to hazitate, but also economics :rolleyes:
Atleast French troops where re-deployed in "operation Turquise" inspite of the unwillingly SC.
-
April 7
Hutu gunmen systematically start tracking down and killing moderate Hutu politicians and Tutsi leaders. The deputy to the U.S. ambassador in Rwanda tells Washington that the killings involve not just political murders, but genocide.
The U.S. decides to evacuate all Americans.
Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, head of the U.N. peacekeeping force in Rwanda, is told by headquarters not to intervene and to avoid armed conflict.
Day 1
Estimated Death Toll: 8,000
He was told by Annan's office, not by the US or UN SC. You keep ignoring that fact. What happened 2 weeks later in the UN is really irrelevent to Annan's mishandling of the situation early on. Even if the US and UN SC decide to send more troops it would have taken sometime to deploy.
April 9, 10, 11
Evidence mounts of massacres targeting ordinary Tutsis. Front page stories newspaper stories cite reports of "tens of thousands" dead and "a pile of corpses six feet high" outside a main hospital.
Gen. Dallaire requests a doubling of his force to 5,000.
Nearly 3,300 Americans, French, Italians and Belgians are evacuated by troops sent in from their countries.
Day 4
Estimated Death Toll: 32,000
April 15
Belgium withdraws its troops from the U.N. force after ten Belgian soldiers are slain. Embarrassed to be withdrawing alone, Belgium asks the U.S. to support a full pullout. Secretary of State Christopher agrees and tells Madeleine Albright, America's U.N. ambassador, to demand complete withdrawal. She is opposed, as are some African nations. She pushes for a compromise: a dramatic cutback that would leave a token force in place.
Day 8
Estimated Death Toll: 64,000
April 16
The New York Times reports the shooting and hacking to death of some 1000 men, women and children in a church where they sought refuge.
Day 9
Estimated Death Toll: 72,000
April 19
By this date, Human Rights Watch estimates the number of dead at 100,000 and calls on the U.N. Security Council to use the word "genocide."
Belgian troops leave Rwanda; Gen. Dallaire is down to a force of 2,100. He will soon lose communication lines to outlying areas and will have only a satellite link to the outside world.
Day 12
Estimated Death Toll: 100,000
After Belgian peace keepers were killed Belgium was looking for a way out. They made a request to the US and the UN SC to withdraw. On the 21 April the UN SC votes:
April 21, 22
The U.S. and the entire U.N. Security Council vote to withdraw 90% of the peacekeepers in Rwanda.
At the urging of Human Rights Watch, the White House issues a statement calling on four Rwandan military leaders to "end the violence."
Had Kofi done something sooner and given Dellair the authority to do something other then watch things would have transpired differently. The best point at which to stop the massacre was before it got out of hand. By April 21 over 100,000 people were already murdered.
What happened on the 21st wouldn't have saved them and is irrelevant to the mishandling of the situation by by Annan's office and my criticism of Annan. Even Kofi admits as much.
Seems like the "Woodman" digs himself even deeper in the pile of dirt
So what pile of dirt are you talking about? The one in your head?
-
Originally posted by Wotan
The French Canadian Dallaire as head of the troops in Rwanda failed as well. He followed the orders from Kofi's office and sat on his hands while people were massacred.
Why this superflous precision ?
I feel guilty enought by the lack of action of my governement no need to add the screw up of some one else.
Plus there is ressources in Rwanda : diamond and bauxite.
-
Because Slo is French Canadian?
:p
I had a shot and I took it...
I feel guilty enought by the lack of action of my governement no need to add the screw up of some one else.
I wasn't blaming you or the French... Poor leadership on the part of the Annan and the UN is what allowed the ball to get rolling.
My criticism is toward Annan, not only did he fail his duties in the case of Rwanda (getting back on the topic of this thread) his family made money from the UN Oil for Food program. Doctoryo seems to think that this is the same thing as the US (Clinton) turning a blind eye to oil deals that violated the UN embargo. As if the US could have stopped even if they wanted to...
With the conflict of interest in regards to Oil for Food and Kofi's failure in regards to Rwanda he should resign or be sent home in shame.
Crabofix feels the need to defend him even on points where Annan himself admits his failure.
At the very very least Crabo's position just goes to show what a joke the UN is to begin with.
Either way he wants it still don't look good for the UN.
-
Kofi Annan, this and Kofi Annan that.
Get off it man, you screwed up bigtime, admit it, together with the troops deployed there. But USA was a part of the ****-up.
And, seems like you where in the "oil for Food" as well, a bribe here and a bribe there.......
That the UN is what it is today, a failure, a US creation, is due to the lack of interest from your country to "pay" and to respect the Charter and treatys in general.
Got it "woodie"?
-
I think it's a French screw up because we have a lot of influence in Africa.
Even if Rwanda is a former Belgian coloni I don't understand why we didn't took any action before Turquoise.
Btw the whole area is shrecked up : Burundi, Congo-Kinshasa, Ouganda and Rwanda have tons of reason to kill each other
-
Kofi Annan, this and Kofi Annan that.
Get off it man, you screwed up bigtime, admit it, together with the troops deployed there. But USA was a part of the ****-up.
And, seems like you where in the "oil for Food" as well, a bribe here and a bribe there.......
That the UN is what it is today, a failure, a US creation, is due to the lack of interest from your country to "pay" and to respect the Charter and treatys in general.
Got it "woodie"?
What a well thought out and clever reply...
However, it seems you have forgotten what this discussion is about. You challenged my claim:
FYI, Kofi Annan was the UN head of peacekeeping during the Rwandan massacre, heck of a job he did there.
It's all about Kofi Annan, you decided to jump into the discussion. Don't whine about the subject matter now.
Clearly the facts show Kofi did a poor job, Kofi admits this himself.
You post nothing that detracts from my claim. In fact you dance all around that and post all sorts of non-sense that have nothing to do with the subject.
The one who screwed up was Kofi...
As for the UN charter I wouldn't piss on it if it were on fire.
Your the one waving around that grand UN Charter as if it is worth the paper it's written on.
I glad to see you concede my point about the uselessness of the UN.
As to Oil for Food that goes directly to the point made by the original poster.
Do you suffer from ADD?
I think it's a French screw up because we have a lot of influence in Africa.
Even if Rwanda is a former Belgian coloni I don't understand why we didn't took any action before Turquoise.
Btw the whole area is shrecked up : Burundi, Congo-Kinshasa, Ouganda and Rwanda have tons of reason to kill each other
I won't argue with you there...:p
What about Sudan? Doesn't France have oil interest there?
-
Originally posted by Wotan
I won't argue with you there...:p
What about Sudan? Doesn't France have oil interest there?
Perhaps , I need to check , I don't work for ELF you know :D
-
Sudan oil has a lot of swedish interest. Now you know who really is contoööing UN......Muhahahahahah
Screwed up in Rwanda, screwed up in Somalia, knew about "oil for Food",,,, lol,, poor soul, are you able to sleep tonight mr Log?
-
Lot of compagnies ...
Lundin Oil, Talisman Energy, Agip, Elf-Aquitaine, TotalFina, Royal Dutch Shell ,Petronas,Gulf Petroleum Company ,National Iranian Gas Company
And lot of countries.
-
Another Scandinavian genius speakth.
Of course the member nations maintain ultimate authority over their forces.
However, there is a chain of command with in the UN Peacekeeping structure. As quoted here Annan's office (by Iqbal Riza using term such 'ordered') told Dallair, to do nothing.
That's there words genius. So those (me) who say they did 'nothing' in this thread are more or less parroting the very people Crabo ( and I assume now you) try to defend.
You can argue what 'nothing' really means but even Annan admits his failures.
Annan was the head of U.N. peacekeeping operations on Jan. 11, 1994, when the commander of U.N. forces in Rwanda, Maj. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, warned the world body that the Kigali government was planning to slaughter Tutsis and said he was making plans to confiscate weapons.
Dallaire, a Canadian, was in charge of 450 U.N. peacekeepers in the Rwandan capital.
In the fax sent to U.N. Headquarters in New York, Dallaire quoted a senior Rwandan security official as saying he had been ordered to register all Tutsis in Kigali for the purpose, he suspected, of "their extermination.''
Annan's office ordered Dallaire to neither protect the informant nor confiscate the arms.
Annan was aware of the order, said his aide, Iqbal Riza, who signed the response.
"I was responsible,'' Riza, who is still Annan's deputy, told the New Yorker when shown a copy of the order. "This is not to say that Mr. Annan was oblivious of what was going on. No. Part of my responsibility was to keep him informed.''
The codemnation of Annan's role doesn't originate from me. I posted several sources above and can fill this thread with 1000 more.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
"Annan's office ordered Dallaire to neither protect the informant nor confiscate the arms."
See how cleverly that sentence is phrased? "ordered to neither" kind of indicates that an actual order was given, but all it really says is that no order was given to protect the informant nor confiscate the arms. Not at all surprising since Annan or his "office" cannot order anything except pizza.
Objection with semantics:
One can order someone to not interfere.
One can not order someone to interfere.
The first prohibits interference, the second phrase indicates indifference to the possible interference.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Funny how a lot of people don't know the first thing about the UN, yet fid it so easy to blame the UN for everything.
"The UN troops did nothing blah blah..." Newsflash! The UN does not have troops ... the member nations do. The UN cannot order anyone to do anything ... it can only authorise and mandate action. If nothing got done it was because the member nations did nothing, and since the member nation also govern the UN it is the member nations and most importantly the members of the security council who decide what the UN authorises and mandates. Annan and the rest of the UN staff are just that ... staff ... administrators. If the UN fails it is because the member nations fail.
Now you uneducated cretins (you know who you are) ... either read up or shut up.
The UN "staff and administrators" don't act like that. Kofi calls for this, condemns that, and demands the other. UN bureaucrats and functionaries preside over programs that distribute BILLIONS of dollars in "aid" to some countries, at the expense of the Western Democracies that pick up the bulk of the bill. The USA has very little say in how that money is spent, since we have one vote among the nations (and yes, we could veto any security council measure; I know that).
UN Peacekeepers ARE under the command of the UN staff. They take their orders from the UN Staff, unless they are countermanded by the providing country. Note that the French General didn't call Paris--he called Kofi.
My problem with the UN is that nations are like people. Everybody is out for his own interests. When yo try to get a concensus of nations to take action in a crisis, everybody tries to figure out what is in it for them. That's why nothing is ever done by the New York debating club known as the UN. It is a failure at everything it ever tried to do.
-
Dallaire, a Canadian, was in charge of 450 U.N. peacekeepers in the Rwandan capital."
See?
"Annan's office ordered Dallaire to neither protect the informant nor confiscate the arms."
See how cleverly that sentence is phrased? "ordered to neither" kind of indicates that an actual order was given, but all it really says is that no order was given to protect the informant nor confiscate the arms. Not at all surprising since Annan or his "office" cannot order anything except pizza.
Tell me cretin, do you blame the White House Chief of Staff for the failures of your government or military? Perhaps you blame the secretaries or speechwriters? Our military screwed up again! Blast those cleaning ladies!
Annan's failure was that he didn't properly inform the member nations of the seriousness of the situation. He failed to do his job as the UN's chief administrator.
Sweat Jesious, (quoting Brady here)
I understand English isn't your first language but if you don't understand correlative conjunctions then maybe you ought ask somebody.
neither / nor is a correlative conjunction
He is neither hot nor cold.
You are neither to speak nor sing.
So:
Annan's office ordered Dallaire to neither protect the informant nor confiscate the arms.
This means:
1. Don't protect the Informant
2. Don't confiscate arms
The following sentence:
Annan was aware of the order, said his aide, Iqbal Riza, who signed the response.
According to your version there was no order so why is Iqbal Riza referring to a non-order?
If you going play the clown at least be an entertaining one.
Annan wasn't Secretary general at the time of Rwanda. He was Under-Secretary General for Peace Keeping. So what you quoted in your second post doesn't mean anything to this discussion.
Here's an opinion piece written by by Kenneth Cain. Cain served in UN peacekeeping operations in Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti and Liberia
The Real Reason Kofi Annan Must Go Genocide, not oil money, is the proof of his failed leadership. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006052)
Mr. Cain seems to think it was an 'order'.
It did not have to happen. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, the U.N.'s force commander in Rwanda, sent Mr. Annan a series of desperate faxes including one warning that Hutu militias "could kill up to 1,000" Tutsis "in 20 minutes" and others pleading for authority to protect vulnerable civilians. But at the crucial moment, Mr. Annan ordered his general to stand down and to vigorously protect, not genocide victims, assembled in their numbers waiting to die, but the U.N.'s image of "impartiality."
Shut up? I have to much fun laughing at you attempting to teach me English.
-
That's what I figured...
What's the word you used a long time ago, ad hominem...?
You know what I think of you so there's no need to repeat it.
Norwegian euro- trash acting as if he's 'educated'.
Are you still un-employed and on welfare?
-
Since GS is so adement about the "UN" being powerless what really is the point of having it? The same business of getting everyone to bicker and spend each others money could be done far more cheaply across the internet... But then no third world African playboys could get all expense paid lifestyles in New York...
Also what is the point of having "UN" approval as a just mandate to do something when the "UN" is powerless and "UN" approval just means a temporary alignment between the entirely selfish self-intersets of the memmber nations especially those on the SC..
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No actually I work for a newspaper now, and run my own business. Currently involved in a command and control technology project for the RNoAF.
Can you tell us more about your business?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No actually I work for a newspaper now, and run my own business. Currently involved in a command and control technology project for the RNoAF.
Good news indeed...
I hope it's not an English language newspaper. You may keep the editors busy.
-
This moring I was enjoying a demitasse of cuban coffee at an outside cafe. two elderly cuban gentlemen were having a spirited political debate punctuated by the accentuated hand gestures common to my people. they reminded me of you morons. :D
-
Originally posted by GScholz
3D modelling and animation. I can't tell you about the project though.
Of course not about the air force project.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
On that note ... I have work to do.
Ok, get to it, Ripsnort of Norway....
-
Originally posted by GScholz
3D modelling and animation. I can't tell you about the project though.
many questions about 3d modelling.
reworking the JB site.
mind if i use you as a resource from time to time?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
UN forces are NOT under the command of the UN staff. They are under the control of the UN Security Council alone. A decision to take action that goes beyond a mandate must be made by the SC itself. Any decision to take action that the SC has already mandated is up to the Force Commander in the field.
Trust me. I know.
The case of Kofi Annan doing absolutely NOTHING to stop the genocide in Rwanda is EXACTLY whats wrong with the UN.
Who gives a crap about UN mandates when literally hundreds of thousands of people are about to be murdered? Imo Kofi Annan screwed up in a big way. He should have at least let Dallaire take action.
By not taking action the UN didnt show its impartiality imo, the UN showed passive consent to the killings.
-
Country UNESCO Region
Statistical Indicators
Economic
GDP (US$ millions) GNP per Capita (US$) GNP Growth Rate per Capita (1985-1995) Public Expenditure on Education (%GNP)
Finland More Developed Regions 125432 20580 7.60
Germany More Developed Regions 2415764 27510 4.70
Norway More Developed Regions 145954 31250 8.30
Switzerland More Developed Regions 300508 40630 5.50
United States More Developed Regions 6952020 26980 5.30
Euros are not uneducated compared to americans when viewed on spending. Same applies to international studies of literacy and sciences.
Actually the ratio is quite the opposite.
Education performances between OECD countries (pages 68 and 69)
http://213.253.134.29/oecd/pdfs/browseit/0104071E.PDF
-
Originally posted by Wotan
No one cares if Jordan and Turkey bought oil from Saddam or who knew about it. I sure don't. Now if that article said something about 'pay-offs to Clinton's daughter' were the reward given for the Clinton's blind eye then you might have something.
Kofi Annan’s son admits oil dealing (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1462576,00.html)
I doubt we could have stopped illegal oil being sold to any of countries bordering Saddam even if we wanted to.
Well mr. Annan said, that he didnt know about his sons deals. He said that he will help any domestical authorities with enquiry and if he will be found guilty, he shall be punished.
How about people who were involved in US ? ... last time we spoke about corurption, some people overhere just considered it as legal bussines.
-
Originally posted by storch
This moring I was enjoying a demitasse of cuban coffee at an outside cafe. two elderly cuban gentlemen were having a spirited political debate punctuated by the accentuated hand gestures common to my people. they reminded me of you morons. :D
Por lo que veo, usted es cubano. Mi esposa tambien es cubana, y tiene toda la familia en Miami, desde hace cuarenta anos. Ahora vivimos en Michigan, donde no sabemos si hay cubanos; muchos mexicanos, pero no cubanos. Millones de arabes de todo tipo, pero no cubanos.
Extrano los cubanos. Extrano los platanos, medianoches, y flan.
Now that I have exhausted my spanish for the evening...
shubie