I think that we have a point here and that is what are the acceptable actions that will cause outrage. We have perhaps 5,000 Iraqi civilian deaths that can be laid at America’s door but hundreds of thousands that may have died under this program because of corruption at the highest levels of the UN. And nothing? Nary a word? Just a peep or two? What gives?
If those who were loudest in their condemnation of the US for not respecting international law, for not caring about innocent Iraqi women and children are silent now, what does this say about their true motives?
Uh, and here we go again: what has Halliburton to do with (me) criticising the pre-war intelligence?
Again, an association good for nothing than to discuss what is has or has not to do with each other, distracting from the actual issue … :snore:
Assume what you want, it proves nothing. If you (or Tigerman) would be interested in a sensible discussion about this or similar issues you would refrain from your provokative ‘anti-left’ comments and related imputations. Until then I am inclined to remain silent as explained.
I see that you used a winkie smilie to indicate that your statement is a joke. Just as I thought.
I disagree Rascal. You have argued the supreme legitimacy of the UN with regard to carrying out any actions against Iraq. You have argued that only the UN was authorized to determine what action should be taken against Iraq. However, as the current revelations demonstrate, the UN, which was the authority supervising and executing the sanctions imposed on Iraq, the UN was obviously not in any position to, nor had it the capacity nor will to enforce any of its own resolutions.
Thus, arguing, as you have done, that only the UN has the authority to determine what actions are to be taken against Iraq strikes me as totally absurd. Its like assigning a child molester to supervise the punishment of school children.
No.
[quote=“Rascal”]As I tried to explain, and I highlight that I was speculating, your argument was not backed up by any substance / facts / evidence. Hence my use of the words “if” and “would”, questioning the issue without saying it is true or not true.
Until you provide such substance / facts / evidence I cannot say (prove) it was true or not true - but neither can you.[/quote]
AFAIK, the charges against Halliburton have not yet been determined either true or false. Yet, you have had no problem posting your outrage at the US Government and Halliburton.
My comments did not imply that at all. My comments simply noted what appears to be a double standard. I have no doubt that you are disgusted by corruption. My question is directed at why you, and others, do not appear to be morally outraged at what appears to be corruption on a massive scale involving the UN.
Whatever. It looks an awful lot like you are ducking the issue.
[quote=“Rascal”]As to the second part: even I would be a “crusader for all that is right” as you call it it doesn’t mean I will respond to each and everything said, in particular I am trying now to refrain from responding to provocations, insults, ridiculous interpretations (nothing personal though sometimes you qualify ) and imputations (right word?).
Though perhaps me not responding on occassion could also prove you wrong and I am not what you want me to be. [/quote]
And you wonder why some people regard you as having an anti-American bent…
If you only have inspiration and time to rail against perceived injustices committed by the US, but not for injustices committed by others, how can you fault others for concluding that you harbor an anti-American bias?
Again, I make no definitive comment regarding your bias… I am just commenting on the appearance.
Innocent Iraqi deaths?
US flouting of international law?
The US unwillingness to give a central role to the UN during the invasion of Iraq?
Corruption?
What?
Set the parameters and do so clearly so you have less wiggle room to squirm when we have you cornered.
I believe that given the above variables that it can be seen quite clearly that the UN, France and Russia were not going to be moral actors and as such why should the US be constrained with regard to the Iraq action? Especially since France, Russia and the UN all believed that Saddam was not compliant with the security council resolutions and when the intelligence agencies of France and Russia believed as well that Saddam had wmds as late as mid January 2003 merely one month prior to the originally planned invasion? AND one of the reasons why there may have been no wmds discovered is precisely because Russian generals visited to tell Saddam how to hide/get rid of them. This was widely reported on in the media at the time. Now, we have found out about the level of corruption in the UN which goes a long way to explaining the so-called go it alone position of the US and its allies and you find this discussion irrelevant or inappropriate since it seems to imply that your only interests were generated by inate anti-Americanism? And you refuse to answer or debate this since we do not have the right attitude? Wake up and smell what you are shoveling.
Winkie smilies do not necessarily indicate a joke. And in the earlier statement addressed at fred the emoticon was referring to “Happy now?”.
To approve actions against Iraq was the job of the UNSC and may not be related to other “departments” or individuals within the UN scamming of money. Or rather taking bribes for closing their eyes. But then things are under investigation as to who and how, so all you can blame the UN for at this time is for failing to realize it earlier.
Thus my earlier remark that it is not the objective of the UN to be corrupt and therefore does not necessarily render the entire organisation useless, they may have failed in one area but that doesn’t mean they fail(ed) in all.
That implies that everything the UN was ever in charge of was absurd and incabable of, including that during the past 50 years no enforcement was done without the help of the US (picking up on the argument by flipper in another thread). That makes the US, as part of the UN, and their actions … ?
Just pointing out a contradiction here, i.e. not all that the UN has done was a failure (and yes, I am giving some credit to the US, too).
Please provide a link for verification / to back-up your claim. And make sure it clearly says that I am outraged about it.
Me not posting here on each and everything issue does not mean I am not morally outraged about them.
And again, as whatever it appears to you doesn’t make you automatically right or prove your point on the issue.
I don’t think so - but if you can provide a bit more substance to your argument rather then looking at who didn’t say something / didn’t respond where you want them to perhaps we can discuss this further.
Care to explain where you “interpret” this from my above statement?
This is actually a serious question as I really can’t understand how you reached that conclusion here!? :s
You don’t get it, do you? I (repeatedly) explained that people may refuse to enter a discussion which starts on or continues with provocations based on their personal or political views. Obviously pointless to discuss anything with you so I will be out of this thread for good.
(You may open another thread to explain how the above statement could possibly be anti-american but I won’t respond here.)
You claim to have been concerned because one important actor in the UN, the US under the leadership of George W. Bush was subverting the process as represented under INTERNATIONAL LAW.
Yet, now that Kofi Annan, the No. 2 at the UN (SAVON), the Russian Ambassador to the UN and especially the French Ambassador to the UN may have been subverting the process, we are to understand that the individuals in question are to be blamed and not the institution. Okay. I’ll bite. Then cannot we not at the very least expect that you will rail against these individuals with the same force and enthusiasm that you once railed against George W. Bush especially in light of the fact that these very actors were the ones that stopped George W. Bush from getting the UN imprimatur that you claimed was so necessary AND they did so not from moral motives but from monetary ones?
Otherwise, I am afraid that this looks very much indeed that your concerns were nothing but concealed anti-americanism. You can say what you like, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. That is something you may want to examine some time. Are your views something that you picked up reflexively in school or uni? was it a bad experience you had with US forces in Germany? is it resentment against the strongest actor in the world? is it dislike of Bush and his Texan manners and black and white view of the world? Because despite your protestations, how else are we to explain away the total lack of concern you have for this particular problem and its far-reaching effects when you were so vociferously adamant during the lead up to the war in Iraq? Fine. Let’s not blame the institution then, but let’s hear a lot more condemnation from you about the very actors who are subverting the process and how they should be dealt with. Let’s hear it five to six times a day on this thread and in this forum.
But not very appropos to the discussion at hand. Rascal was a frequent poster railing against the Bush administration for destroying international law and the sanctity of the UN etc. Now we have five to six actors IN the UN who have done far more to subvert these processes than Bush and what do we get from Rascal? SILENCE. AND even more importantly given their role in preventing Bush from getting his UN imprimatur, we now have to question their motives give the large sums of money that they were receiving from Saddam.
So JB do you have anything intelligent to say about this subject or are you just here to post cute remarks and move on? No one is forcing you after all to come to the IP forum. If you find these subjects too weighty you can always go back to find out what your favorite color tells about you and your political beliefs in the Open Forum.
Heard last night on the TV that P. Bremer XIII Jr. has ordered the seizure of all WMD’s (Wads of Murky Documents) pertaining to the UN Oil for Food Program(me). The Question is: they say they know what they are and that they exist but will they find them?
But we will see what we will see. And this time, I think that our little friends at the UN may have cause to worry. After all, what was it that happened to our strident little critic in the UK, um, George Galloway, I believe was his name? Do you remember? I am a little unclear as to what happened to him exactly? Um do you happen to know? haha
One more point. Notice how when Rascal believed that he had a leg to stand on, he fought tooth and nail. Don’t hear too much from him now do we but that is because he cannot handle the stress of being labeled anti-american and that there is no point to discussing the issue with us despite having done a most admirable job against all odds before? I think that the silence is truly golden and is very indicative of the fact that even Rascal knows that this time he is busted. We admit and sing loudly and clearly mea culpa on the wmd issue but the corruption at the UN is even more relevant to the discussion at hand given that it was directly instrumental to preventing the coalition from getting the UN imprimatur that was deemed so necessary.
So remain silent Rascal remain silent, but we know the real reasons don’t we? hahahahahahah
Did not stop him from posting while foaming at the mouth before. Ah, this is truly a pleasurable experience. Rascal does not take to being busted very well and this is so enjoyable.
I believe that the loudest critic of the US-UK efforts in Iraq came from one George Galloway and then it was proven that he had been on Saddam’s payroll and he lost his Labour party membership but has not yet been put on trial for treason or has he?
Let’s hope that the same fate befalls Kofi Annan, his son, the French and Russian ambassadors and anyone else involved in this disgusting mess.
In the meantime, we had to live with egg on our face regarding the wmds. Now, it is the other side’s turn. Let them explain away all these events as best as they can or will but I think that we can expect a lot more to turn tail and suddenly find that the “issue is irrelevant” to them. hahahahah HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Now, I understand that we have to wait until November for the Telegraph vs. Galloway case to make it through the system. Why so long?
freddie[/quote]
You remember Braveheart. None of those Scottish Lairds could agree on anything. People are still waiting for Robert the Bruce’s legal amendments to be approved. Could be 2158 by which time George will be dead.
I still don’t see the point of this thread. I think it has been gennerally accepted that the Bush administration can commit whatever crimes it wants because Clinton has sex outside of marriage.
Bush manufactured an excuse to invade Irag: Oh that’s nothing, Clinton had sex with Monica Lewinski.
Cheney and his cronies reap huge profits from the Iraq invasion: Oh what’s the problem, members of the UN are suspected of taking bribes from Saddam.
The US budget deficit has grown so big: Yes, but Hillary is such a bitch. (She killed Vince Foster you know.)
“May” implies it’s not for sure / proven, hence I cautioned not to jump into conclusions.
And that’s the same reason why I further don’t see much reason to comment, because at this time it’s all speculative.
I also assume that most people would even agree that, should the corruption on highest levels be true, it is not right and that they are outraged. But since I have to assume that hardly anyone is arguing against that I expect that the outrage is mostly subdued - as compared to the Iraq war where the discussions were constantly fueled (fuelled?) from both sides.
But whatever the level of outrage in case of the UN, I doubt it has anything to do with Anti-Americanism.
Why I had such an interest in the Iraq war was explained by myself before, and I am sure it was more than once, so I won’t repeat it here again.
But thanks for also proving my point that you just ignore or “forget” those things - if you ask a direct question you will usually get a direct answer. Pretending I never did by repeatedly asking the same thing and to continue your argument on your perception rather than my answer you imply that I try to dodge it, that’s highly hypocritical and insulting to me, another reason why I am tired of dicussing things with certain individuals here.
Further most of my involvment in the discussions related directly to the AFP and in particular the Iraq war. These discussions dragged over months (when I indeed wasn’t that busy), thus were constantly on-going, so I think it’s not fair to accuse me of selective outrage or anti-Americanism for participating in those frequently. You and Tigerman for example did the same - just arguing from another point of view, but you don’t see me labelling you with whatever term, do you? (compare to your “lefties”, “braindead”, “Anti-American” etc.)
I already challenged Tigerman on this - provide any proof that I am anti-American except my “lack of outrage” against other issues; I have tried hard not to judge, insult or accuse Americans or America as a country, where I slipped during the heat of the discussion I have usually retracted the statement and apologized where necessary.
My argumentation was against the Bush administration and the AFP, in a critical way as I would like to think of it. If I would be anti-American in the way you describe me you could support your case by showing that I show a certain amount of hostility.
I have nothing against the US (not that I never said so, hence I am just repeating myself over and over) or against American citizens; I do buy certain American products without that I look for a non-American alternative, I eat McDonals, I talk to Americans and I plan to visit America one day.
Now if that all qualifies as being anti-American then I will admit to it. If not I suggest you re-think labelling others as such.
On a more personal note I also feel insulted that you don’t give me some credit here, because if I had something to say I would do so, without attempting to hide it.
) and imputations (right word?).
