Big Big Forums - Coupons, Freebies, Deals & Discounts - View Single Post - Oil-for-food: The United Nations Exposed

Jolie Rouge · 12-08-2004, 02:03 AM

Time For Kofi To Go?

Annan and his aides maintain to this day that the Oil-For-Food program had nothing to do with Saddam’s pricing scams and smuggling of oil. Yet the Senate investigation reveals that Saddam and his cronies pocketed at least $21 billion during the years in which the Oil-For-Food program was running. Those were the very same years in which Annan repeatedly went to bat to enable Saddam, under Oil-For-Food, to import the equipment to rebuild Iraq’s oil infrastructure, thereby creating vastly more oil to game the system.

Yet we are to believe that Kofi Annan knew nothing about the kickbacks, the pricing scams and the smuggling of oil – even though the Senate investigation will reportedly reveal that numerous people in the UN were in on the scam. It is uncertain whether Annan received any funds from the scandal. We do know that his son received money from the scams. But whether Annan directly benefited from the Oil-For-Food scandal or not, he allowed it to continue for years.

Senator Norm Coleman has called for Annan’s resignation from the United Nations. Coleman said, “It’s time for U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to resign. The massive scope of this debacle demands nothing less.”

Be sure to read Senator Coleman’s December 1 WSJ editorial entitled “Kofi Annan Must Go” in SPECIAL ARTICLES below.

I praise Senator Coleman for his efforts and his hard line against Kofi Annan. I wish President Bush would join him in calling for Annan’s resignation. But he hasn’t. In fact, I was disappointed to hear Mr. Bush say last week that he wishes to strengthen our relations with the UN. I would argue just the opposite!

The UN Rip-off Of The United States

Did you know that the US pays 25% of the United Nations’ budget each year? By comparison, did you know that the next largest contributors are Japan at 12.5% and the UK at 8.9%?

Did you know that the US paid dues and contributions of more than $3 billion in 2003, according to the State Department? This is in addition to the obscenely valuable UN building and land in New York City and elsewhere that we provide.

We do all this despite the fact that many more Americans distrust the UN than trust it. A Rasmussen survey earlier this year showed that only 38% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the UN, while 44% have an unfavorable opinion. The unfavorable numbers are certainly higher now that the details of the Oil-For-Food scandal are being exposed.

The UN is unquestionably an anti-American body. The UN is comprised in large part of representatives of small, poor Third World nations, many of which are inherently corrupt and anti-American. The fact that their ingrained dishonesty and corruption would spill over into the UN really shouldn’t surprise anyone. Nor should it surprise us that the UN has had a history of anti-American activity.

In 2001, for example, the United States was removed from the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights (UNHCHR) in favor of Sudan, one of the world’s absolute worst human rights violators. By the way, Sudan was recently granted a third term on that commission! This is only one of many such examples, so it’s not a stretch to see how a UN organization could be so corrupt.

[b]Is Our Policy Toward The UN About To Change?

There are many of us in conservative circles that would just as soon see the UN relocated to some other country. France would be a good choice, in my opinion. But that is not likely to happen. So it remains to be seen if US policy toward the UN will be toughening under the leadership of Secretary of State-to be, Condoleezza Rice.

President Bush has made it clear that he believes the State Department should carry out the policies and desires of the president, rather than operating its own agenda as it has for years. It is also clear that Condi Rice is fiercely loyal to President Bush. Given that the State Department is our direct link to the UN, it will be interesting to see if Miss Rice will continue the current “accommodationist” policy, or if she will begin to seriously pressure the UN for major reforms.

Colin Powell is clearly in the accommodationist crowd. So also is the current US ambassador to the UN, former Senator John Danforth. Danforth is seen by many as a politician who believes his job is to smooth over relations with the UN. One administration official said, “His M.O. is to make nice with the UN.” Danforth is retiring next year, however, and President Bush will appoint his successor.

With Norm Coleman’s high profile denouncement of the UN and his call for Kofi Anna’s resignation, he has paved the way for the Bush administration to crack down on the UN. With Danforth’s departure, Bush will have the opportunity to appoint a new ambassador who will fight for reform.

Now it remains to be seen if President Bush really wants to see the UN reformed or not. If he does, Condi Rice may be the perfect Secretary of State to do so. She will do what Bush wants. But it is unclear at this point what exactly Bush wants to do.

Talk in Washington over the weekend and on Monday was that Bush is considering appointing Joe Lieberman (D-CT) as the next UN ambassador. Lieberman is one of the few moderate senators. I actually like Lieberman. However, Lieberman is NOT going to shake up the United Nations. If Lieberman is Bush’s choice for the UN, then we will know that all this talk about cracking down on the UN is just so much hot air.

The bottom line is:
1) Kofi Annan needs to go;
2) any other members of the UN that profited from the Oil-For-Food scandal also need to go;
3) Paul Volcker should be given complete autonomy in his UN investigation;
4) Bush needs to appoint someone who is very tough as our next UN ambassador;
5) the US should require that the anti-American policies of the UN be stopped;
and
6) if not, we halt our bloated payments to the UN indefinitely.

If I were in charge, the UN would be jettisoned to another country to host its liberal, anti-American agenda! (Even though a majority of Americans probably agrees with me by now, I’m sure to get lots of nasty responses on this one.)

12-08-2004, 02:03 AM	#37 (permalink)
Jolie Rouge C & P Queen Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Lan astaslem ! Posts: 38,136 iTrader: (2) Thanks: 1,465 Thanked 3,533 Times in 1,948 Posts	Largest Financial Scandal In History Just Doubled {{continued** Time For Kofi To Go? Annan and his aides maintain to this day that the Oil-For-Food program had nothing to do with Saddam’s pricing scams and smuggling of oil. Yet the Senate investigation reveals that Saddam and his cronies pocketed at least $21 billion during the years in which the Oil-For-Food program was running. Those were the very same years in which Annan repeatedly went to bat to enable Saddam, under Oil-For-Food, to import the equipment to rebuild Iraq’s oil infrastructure, thereby creating vastly more oil to game the system. Yet we are to believe that Kofi Annan knew nothing about the kickbacks, the pricing scams and the smuggling of oil – even though the Senate investigation will reportedly reveal that numerous people in the UN were in on the scam. It is uncertain whether Annan received any funds from the scandal. We do know that his son received money from the scams. But whether Annan directly benefited from the Oil-For-Food scandal or not, he allowed it to continue for years. Senator Norm Coleman has called for Annan’s resignation from the United Nations. Coleman said, “It’s time for U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to resign. The massive scope of this debacle demands nothing less.” Be sure to read Senator Coleman’s December 1 WSJ editorial entitled “Kofi Annan Must Go” in SPECIAL ARTICLES below. I praise Senator Coleman for his efforts and his hard line against Kofi Annan. I wish President Bush would join him in calling for Annan’s resignation. But he hasn’t. In fact, I was disappointed to hear Mr. Bush say last week that he wishes to strengthen our relations with the UN. I would argue just the opposite! The UN Rip-off Of The United States Did you know that the US pays 25% of the United Nations’ budget each year? By comparison, did you know that the next largest contributors are Japan at 12.5% and the UK at 8.9%? Did you know that the US paid dues and contributions of more than $3 billion in 2003*, according to the State Department? This is in addition to the obscenely valuable UN building and land in New York City and elsewhere that we provide. We do all this despite the fact that many more Americans distrust the UN than trust it. A Rasmussen survey earlier this year showed that only 38% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the UN, while 44% have an unfavorable opinion. The unfavorable numbers are certainly higher now that the details of the Oil-For-Food scandal are being exposed. The UN is unquestionably an anti-American body. The UN is comprised in large part of representatives of small, poor Third World nations, many of which are inherently corrupt and anti-American. The fact that their ingrained dishonesty and corruption would spill over into the UN really shouldn’t surprise anyone. Nor should it surprise us that the UN has had a history of anti-American activity. In 2001, for example, the United States was removed from the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights (UNHCHR) in favor of Sudan, one of the world’s absolute worst human rights violators. By the way, Sudan was recently granted a third term on that commission! This is only one of many such examples, so it’s not a stretch to see how a UN organization could be so corrupt. [b]Is Our Policy Toward The UN About To Change? There are many of us in conservative circles that would just as soon see the UN relocated to some other country. France would be a good choice, in my opinion. But that is not likely to happen. So it remains to be seen if US policy toward the UN will be toughening under the leadership of Secretary of State-to be, Condoleezza Rice. President Bush has made it clear that he believes the State Department should carry out the policies and desires of the president, rather than operating its own agenda as it has for years. It is also clear that Condi Rice is fiercely loyal to President Bush. Given that the State Department is our direct link to the UN, it will be interesting to see if Miss Rice will continue the current “accommodationist” policy, or if she will begin to seriously pressure the UN for major reforms. Colin Powell is clearly in the accommodationist crowd. So also is the current US ambassador to the UN, former Senator John Danforth. Danforth is seen by many as a politician who believes his job is to smooth over relations with the UN. One administration official said, “His M.O. is to make nice with the UN.” Danforth is retiring next year, however, and President Bush will appoint his successor. With Norm Coleman’s high profile denouncement of the UN and his call for Kofi Anna’s resignation, he has paved the way for the Bush administration to crack down on the UN. With Danforth’s departure, Bush will have the opportunity to appoint a new ambassador who will fight for reform. Now it remains to be seen if President Bush really wants to see the UN reformed or not. If he does, Condi Rice may be the perfect Secretary of State to do so. She will do what Bush wants. But it is unclear at this point what exactly Bush wants to do. Talk in Washington over the weekend and on Monday was that Bush is considering appointing Joe Lieberman (D-CT) as the next UN ambassador. Lieberman is one of the few moderate senators. I actually like Lieberman. However, Lieberman is NOT going to shake up the United Nations. If Lieberman is Bush’s choice for the UN, then we will know that all this talk about cracking down on the UN is just so much hot air.* The bottom line is: 1) Kofi Annan needs to go; 2) any other members of the UN that profited from the Oil-For-Food scandal also need to go; 3) Paul Volcker should be given complete autonomy in his UN investigation; 4) Bush needs to appoint someone who is very tough as our next UN ambassador; 5) the US should require that the anti-American policies of the UN be stopped; and 6) if not, we halt our bloated payments to the UN indefinitely. If I were in charge, the UN would be jettisoned to another country to host its liberal, anti-American agenda! (Even though a majority of Americans probably agrees with me by now, I’m sure to get lots of nasty responses on this one.) __________________ Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car. a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT!** Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?