Anti-UN people want to stop feeding the poor Africans

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

Mex101 RE:Anti-UN people want to stop feeding the poor Africans 2/8/2006 9:34:09 PM

I would like to see links to UN curroption. I don't feel like surfing the web for reliable links so if any of you are nice enough, please show me some links.

Quote Reply

Pseudonym RE:Anti-UN people want to stop feeding the poor Africans 2/9/2006 9:25:19 AM

UN Sex Crimes in Congo link Oil For Food (read the whole thing) link link UN Human Rights Commission (The Greatest UN Joke going) link link link More Corruption Probes and other Miscellaneous Items link link You know Mex I could spend all day Googling "United Nations Corrupt" and other variations and fill pages of links to articles and forums who talk endlessly on the subject. If you want to know the truth do the rest of the research, there is ALOT more out there.

Quote Reply

Pseudonym Repost of Appleciderus from another UN discussion 2/9/2006 9:28:39 AM

'appleciderus' Never solved a crisis, 11/18/2005 8:25:29 PM but occasionally successful in spite of itself! Swami: There were NO UN ?peacekeepers? in Cambodia. The UN was so ineffectual dealing with Pol Pot that a disgusted North Vietnam intervened. Imagine North Viet Nam interceding in a ?human rights? issue while the UN debated. Millions of innocent dead. Crosshairs: Korea is arguably a UN success, but only because the Soviet Union had walked out of the Security Council over a different issue. They never did that again. BTW, there is today only a ?cease fire? preventing renewed conflict, not a UN negotiated peace. Ilpars: Gulf War I is a prime example of the UN reluctantly dragging its feet. Without US prodding, the UN would still be negotiating Iraq?s withdrawal from Kuwait. However, UN fans can put that one in the ?win? column. Yobbo: East Timor was a UN disaster until Australia stepped in with troops. The UN claims credit, but let us all thank Australia for not waiting as long as North Vietnam waited. Never the less, innocent people died waiting for the UN to save them. Bombard: The UN has not eradicated smallpox. As uncomfortable as this is to say, Louis Pasteur had more to do with eradicating smallpox than Bombard understands. River blindness? Schools? Roads? Wells? Sanitation? Health Care? They are all UN disasters! The money allocated versus the money delivered to programs is felonious. Senator Coleman?s committee reported last month that a $600,000 UN program had a 10 MILLION dollar administrative budget. Where is the ?outrage?? Lebanon, Cambodia, Sierra Leone, Liberia? Sound familiar? Of course they do: recent additions to the long list of UN failures, at the cost of thousands of innocent lives. Along with Somalia, Srebinicia, Sudan, slavery, etc..and my favorite: polio. Since the polio vaccine became available in the mid 1950?s the UN has had multiple ?5 year plans? to eradicate polio, the latest goal being 2008(?). The number of worldwide polio victims increased again this year. In fact, US victims are now on the increase because of ?imported? poliovirus. BTW, most of the UN funds for polio eradication come from Rotary International, about 130 million dollars this year alone. (Please see UN administrative costs noted above.) Sentinel: In 1956 the President of Lebanon publicly requested the US, Britain, and France to protect Lebanon from internal political interference by the United Arab Republic. Lebanon then formally complained to the UN Security Council. The UN sent ?observers?. Had the UN been forceful rather than observant, Beirut might still be the ?Pearl of the Orient?. Instead, almost 50 years later, Lebanon is still a disaster as the UN debates the possible involvement of Syria. (Former United Arab Republic) in a political assassination. Pucka: I hope your café romance lasts forever, but your rose colored glasses confuse the UN?s original purpose with its present performance. Phoenix: We agree on many things, but not this. The UN was formed by the victors of WWII in order to prevent another conflict, a conflict they believed to be the fault of the weak League of Nations. The Security Council was composed solely of the victors, who by 1945 were calling themselves the ?United Nations? rather than the ?Allies?. It was not set up as a forum for lesser nations to flex their muscles, but for the ?United Nations? (Allies) to be sure that no nation flexed its muscles but they. Yet, as early as the San Francisco conference in 1945, both Truman and Churchill knew it was a sham as Eastern Europe was swallowed up by Stalin. Then Churchill was gone from the scene. Today, the UN is the image of the prewar League of Nations. (Unfair to the League, which had no opportunity for similar corruption.) The only thing that has saved the world from nuclear conflict to date is the West and the Soviets respecting each other?s ability to fulfill their ?mutual destruction? policies. Even in the ?Cuban Missile? crisis the UN played no role. Today, ?mutual destruction? policies have no benefit with theocratic jihadist Iran, and the UN has been unwilling to be more forceful than it was in Lebanon a half century ago. Warrior: Add to Korea the creation of Israel. Ranger: You understand why the UN is a petrie dish of corruption, but only Security Council consensus was conceived as necessary. Hello?: This is a classic example of how the UN sits on its hands, waits for the outcome, and then claims jurisdiction and credit for success. It was not any nations calls to Eisenhower that effected events. It was Eisenhower?s calls to the Brits and French that changed events. Eisenhower was always cool under stress and I remember only twice seeing his anger publicly visible: with Suez, and in Paris after the U2 incident. He was furious that the US had no warning of the Brits, French and Israeli actions. The UN ?monitors? (not ?peacekeepers?) were documented by media to turn a blin

Quote Reply

Ezekiel Dictatorship rules in the UN 7/5/2007 1:14:32 PM

An institution will be as good as the participant within it......as simple as possible is this rational.

The majority of nations that take part in the U.N. democratic processes are totalitarian regimes therefore the u.n. will always be a fundamentally flawed and ineffective body. Far from creating peace it has in many instances caused bloodshed and deepened crisis. The U.N. is contemptible b/c the majority who take part it in are brutal regime's that uses and encorporates the U.N. as part of its strategies. The U.N. must either be reformed or sidelined as a body with any real importance!

Quote Reply

1 2