Another U.N. story not getting any media or forum play....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

You now appear to be trying (but failing miserably) to pretend to have missed the point of the original article, which wasn't to highlight what has been done by a relatively small number of troops (out of many thousands deployed) but to attempt to suggest that the U.N. is doing nothing about it.

The charges being laid were against those at the top for inaction, that's what there is no proof about. Indeed, the article you have just quoted shows that action is indeed being taken. "There were reports", "In another report", "a group of Canadian paratroopers were investigated". Just who do you think is making these reports and performing these investigations?

It certainly isn't Michelle Malkin, judging from her blogs she appears to have an attention span of about 10 minutes, and just about everything she produces is a version of something which has appeared elsewhere, but twisted to meet her own distorted agenda.

Keep twisting things however much you want, J2, if you think you are convincing anyone of your sincerity you are simply fooling yourself.

---

Ah.

I will not plead guilty to unfairly painting Kofi Annan a rapist by proxy, as you accuse me of doing, Lynx-I merely point up the story to backstop my opinion that Annan and his cronies (please don't dispute me on this, for that is precisely what they are) ought to be done in for their utter incompetence, not because they partook directly in the activity, but because they don't accept that they are at all responsible for the actions of their field operatives.

Besides, I never fool myself; it's just not nice.

BTW-Annan's predecessor, Mr. Boutros-Boutros Ghali, should be hauled out of retirement to face the same music, as it appears he also presided over the O.F.F. scandal ;)

Quote:

---

Just who do you think is making these reports and performing these investigations?

---

Well?

Sorry if you've covered this, I only skimmed most of the posts, but is Kofi Annan actually responsible (technically) for either this or the oil for food thing? The little I understand of it is that he has no power/responsibility for peacekeeping operations or the oil for food thing as these are both the pet projects of the UN security council?

I realise he is marginally as some of the officials involved in this sex scandal may fall within his domain and he is implicated by association on the oil for food thing. But I think the case against him in particular is overstated, isn't it?

Old BBG could not have had much of an opportunity to get involved with the kick backs from the oil for food thing. Although the decision to set up the programme was taken in 1995 it was December 1996 before the oil starting moving. Boutros left office in 1996.

However, Boutros was something of bette noir for the US; even more than Kofi who was actually the Clinton Administration's choice when they vetoed Boutros from a second term (although I appreciate that the fact he was Clinton's choice may explain much :shifty: )

On a point of order above regarding the Rwandan massacre - the weapon of choice as I recall was the machette. The Rwandan massacre was a true nightmare but I doubt anyone could have stopped it. It was an explosion of violence, neighbour against neighbour. An orgy of violence carried out in a surprisingly short timescale that seems almost impossible to explain in the cold light of day. On reflection it was more like a Shlock horror film than a historical event. In this light, the inter-governmental sale of $26m of arms is something of a red herring You don't get a huge amount of anything for $26m and you certainly can't equip an army for it.

That is essentially the problem. So much of the criticism of the UN revolves around red herrings and ground axes. The UN is not perfect and as RF pointed out soldiers can sometimes be less than angelic especially when faced with an unseen enemy and a continual drip of terrorist attacks.

All organisations have had problems with embezzlers, exploiters and criminals including armies, chuches and banks. The UN is working in the poorest most dysfunctional parts of the globe and is often under-funded and under-resourced. This is not excuse for those that commit the crimes simply that it increases their opportunity to do so undetected.

The difficulty is, who would plug the gap if all the UN agencies pulled out? Would we return to devil take the hindmost? Whilst the ball has been dropped a few times by the UN, what if there was no one to even try and catch it?

I support the UN not out of any ideological or political attachment but because I believe its net effect has been for the better not worse. If there were to be a more effective alternative I would have no sentiment about moving to the new. However, most of the criticism is short on alternatives.


On a separate issue, what actually drives the criticism against the UN? It largely appears to emanate from one political wing of one country.


Why does the Yak party of Outer Mongolia dislike the UN so much? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Well?

---

I acknowledge the U.N. is investigating the matter.

So what?

If I remember correctly (and I do, I assure you), the U.N. didn't instigate the investigation until it was reported by another party...perhaps it was the complainants? :whistling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

On a point of order above regarding the Rwandan massacre - the weapon of choice as I recall was the machette. The Rwandan massacre was a true nightmare but I doubt anyone could have stopped it. It was an explosion of violence, neighbour against neighbour. An orgy of violence carried out in a surprisingly short timescale that seems almost impossible to explain in the cold light of day.

On a separate issue, what actually drives the criticism against the UN? It largely appears to emanate from one political wing of one country.


Why does the Yak party of Outer Mongolia dislike the UN so much? ;)

---

Would that you were around when myfiles3000 was attempting a keel-haul of the U.S. for not stopping the Rwandan massacre, Bigglesworth.

As to your last, apparently I am a party of one, albeit with two wings.

I am not a yak, although I have done, but neither have I set foot/hoof/talon in any area of Mongolia, Outer or otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I acknowledge the U.N. is investigating the matter.

So what?

If I remember correctly (and I do, I assure you), the U.N. didn't instigate the investigation until it was reported by another party...perhaps it was the complainants? :whistling

---

............similar to pictures from Abu Gharib........ :whistling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

............similar to pictures from Abu Gharib........ :whistling

---

Touche. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDave

so the united nations is just a front kept for a network of peadophiles and rapists.

...and i'm crazy for doubting a plane hit the pentagon :rolleyes:

---

Popular Mechanics magazine did an article evaluating 9/11 conspiracy theories.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?

Quote:

---

To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military

In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense.

---

Exerpts:

Quote:

---

Though dozens of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building, conspiracy advocates insist there is evidence that a missile or a different type of plane smashed into the Pentagon.

---

Quote:

---

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

---

http://media.popularmechanics.com/im...light77-sm.jpg

People tend to cling to theories that support what they want to believe.

Exactly so, Hobbes.

That they should want to believe such things is a bit curious.

Documented fact: U.N. personnel are committing atrocities in the Congo.

Conclusion? Impossible-and even if it did happen, it's not the U.N.'s fault.


Conspiracy theory: A military transport plane remotely controlled by the CIA hit the Pentagon.

Conclusion? Just as I thought; it only stands to reason this is true, and everyone knows it; besides, who but the U.S. would do something so horrible?