John kerry out of touch with UN

John kerry out of touch with UN [+ favourites]

On April 17th. Democratic presidential contender John Kerry called on President George W. Bush to get rid of the "Made in America" tag on the US-led occupation of Iraq in a new campaign attack. Kerry said an international mission approved by the United Nations must be set up to organize elections, restore government services and help rebuild the Iraqi economy. Candidate Kerry needs a better, more up to date staff to keep him informed. The UN is being investigated for Billions (not millions) of dollars in Iraqi kickbacks in the Oil for Food program. France, Russia and other UN members who spoke out against taking Saddam down are now caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Why would any Presidential leader trust the United nations with American lives?
Read for yourself - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4779810/#040422 ,http://www.acepilots.com/unscam

quote:

---

United Nations must be set up to organize elections, restore government services and help rebuild the Iraqi economy. Candidate Kerry needs a better, more up to date staff to keep him informed. The UN is being investigated for Billions (not millions) of dollars in Iraqi kickbacks in the Oil for Food program.

---

"Even though is difficult, I can still dream."

I have felt for quite a while that something was wrong with the UN / American relationship. I know we have had our up & downs, not always paid money due to the UN, etc.. With all that said, the UN exists because of the US and many times when the UN has acted out against wrong worldwide it was only with massive US help. The oil for food program has been under fire for a while, with the latest showing criminal activity at the top levels of the UN. Why would candidate Kerry want to leave Iraq & leave the very crooks that have lied and stolen large sums of cash in charge of Iraq? I think Iraq would turn into another Somalia, Kosovo or Sudan. You have already seen small, rival warlords trying to carve out their small piece of the Iraqi country. If the US left and the Iraqi people depended on the resolve of Spain, France, Canada, etc. they would be butchered in their sleep. Look at how W. Europe watched Yugoslavia disintegrate into multiple factions and unbelievable killing fields. NATO was given credit for the campaign to end the widespread terror, but it was Clinton deploying large amounts of the US military that accomplished the mission. How far would NATO have gotten without Clinton’s resolve to deploy the US military?

There is saying "the pot calling the kettle black." Our intentions are not so pure in wanting a free Iraq. The U.S. Department of Defense has already awarded 25 billion in rebuilding contracts.

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

Our country ALWAYS rebuilds other nations after war. ALWAYS!
That is nothing new.
This is perhaps why Germany, and France are indebted to us. As well as Japan.
It is typical policy Okcity. That much I remember in US History class. Which is saying a lot, since that was my nap time.

"Even though is difficult, I can still dream."

Did we rebuild Vietnam.

Do we tear things down just so corporate america can grow richer rebuilding it?

I don't think Japen would agree that they are indebted to us. When I was in school, there was a movie they showed. A documentery of the damage our bombs did. I must of seen it five times. Have you seen it? what happened to that movie?

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

From what I'm trying to remember(which politics n global economics is NOT my thing) Japan actually has us by the balls.

As for Vietnam and other countries...I think that the whole corporate america thing is true...If there is no intrest or no way seen to make gawds of money...then we leave it alone...
it really sucks, but thats the way things seem now-a-days...
But, like I said, I'm no major or certainly up to date in politics or economics...just my 2cents

"Everyone leaves. In the End. Everything Dies. In the End. It doesn't matter how hard you hold on. "Mortiis-Everyone Leaves""

"Our country ALWAYS rebuilds other nations after war. ALWAYS!
That is nothing new. "
No not ALWAYS. It rebuilds those nations in which it has interests. Namely when the US does not want them to turn communist (Japan, Germany, S.Korea, France, Italy).
The US is not going to rebuild Afganistan for example, and I doubt the US has the ability to rebuild a hostile and unstable Iraq.

As a sidenote, any country which has been rebuilt by the US is (despite US motives) indebted to the US. Rebuilding isn't cheap and has helped western Europe and Japan immeasurably.

I don't understand why people are so critical to the UN. The UN wasn't set up to have practical use, it wasn't setup so it could monitor international peace, it was setup by the US for the US.
The was initially a US puppet and it hasn't gone far beyond that.
Its primary role, and the one it accomplishes the best, is to add legitimacy to US actions.

That legitimacy comes at the price of having to relegate some authority to the UN, but really, I don't see what the US has to lose by letting the UN take over in Iraq.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

We could have diplomaticly given Iraq over to the U.N., saved face and still have some control without looking like bullies. We still might be able to. The scandle - like that's news, like we didn't ever know, ya right. We make news of it now to discredit the U.N., but it all comes back to us. Because it really is our U.N.

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

The UN is a peacekeeping force and not an army. Problem is, once fighting starts, they split. Look at Kosovo where Muslims are killing the Serbs and the UN is afraid of coming out of their housing complex's. Look at Sudan where over a million non Muslims have been kicked out of their homes and many thousands killed and the UN left. The UN would not last a month in Iraq. Give it over to the UN is the surest way to have a radical Islam government set up. It was our UN, not any more. Syria, France and Russia on the security council and Lybia and Syria on the Human rights council. What a farce.

You are right - I agree. I posted a note on the Iraq.net because someone said, stop telling us about the problems without giving solutions, so I did. But I don't know if it would still work or not, we've already messed things up so bad. But what we should have done was: as soon as we discovered there were no WMD, we should have apologized, because it was the WMD that made the whole thing legal, without them, we're fighting an ilagal war. So - we should have apologized and gone to the United Nations and said, "you call the shots, we'll support you" And our military would give the UN all the support it would need.

It would mean giving up our authority. Possibly loosing future contracts and control over most of the oil. Though we would be loosing some on the front end, we would make gains on the back end, to include a more favorable world opinion about the United States.

When the UN has gone into Iraq, I don't think they got the protection they needed, so they left - and I don't know for sure if they returned or not.

But you're right. The UN has zero power. It can only make resolutions but cannot inforce them.

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

UN resolution 1441 (Iraq's 17th) gave Iraq one last chance to comply with the United Nation's resolutions. This resolution also stated that the use of force was authorized for non compliance with the resolution. So what should we apologize for. Use of force was authorized by the UN via resolution 1441. If the UN is going to pass resolutions, do you not think they should mean something? If they just write these up and nothing is enforced, what country will comply. I am just extremely concerned about the UN. Do you realize that the US representative was the only person that walked out when Sudan was put on the Human Rights commission? Sudan will not even let UN representatives in their country to see the slaughter of the non Muslim Africans. While the US was kicked off the council, zero countries where identified as being human right offenders. It was always the US that demanded the posting of the "shame" list of countries. I don't know.

I agree that there have been many issues that the UN has failed to act upon, and has even turned their back in the face of genocide. Rwanda is a perfect example. However, we must not forget why the world needs the UN.

We are living in a global economy. The nations of the world are dependant on each other to maintain stability and peace. Any shift in balance that may jeopardize this stability must be addressed by all nations.

If UN 1441 authorized the use of force, what force was given the authority to act? Was it the US? What resolution specifically gave us the authority to enforce 1441? If the UN was not to act, why did we feel compelled to do this on our own? So-dam Insane was hiding something, this is true, but no inspector, no world leader, nobody except our President thought it was worth going to war over. Why? Why were they so driven to attack when they knew they had faulty intelligence on WMD's, the 9/11 connection, and who knows what else.

What this administration has done is evident why the UN is needed. And now, they want the UN to come in to pick up the pieces. We created this quagmire, and I would not blame the world if they turned their backs on us.

"No one died when Clinton lied!"

quote:

---

So what should we apologize for.

---

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

The UN resolution gives the US power to invade Iraq if and only if Saddam does not comply.
However, he complied.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"