Article

2004-12-02 International-UN-NGOs

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by trailing wife 2004-12-02 1:26:35 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 10% is a joke.

Posted by Dcreeper 2004-12-02 8:42:30 AM|| 2004-12-02 8:42:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Today would be good.

Posted by Tom 2004-12-02 8:43:10 AM|| 2004-12-02 8:43:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 woo hoo! Cut them 10% for this. And then cut them another 10% for the sexual abuses and then another for their parking violations and keep on going until they are eating lunch at the Local Micky D's... in Paris.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-02 8:44:19 AM|| 2004-12-02 8:44:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Agreed that 10% is a joke.

As a compromise, I suggest 5% off original price EVERY WEEK until they fess up.

Posted by Ptah 2004-12-02 8:46:40 AM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-12-02 8:46:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 This is Coleman cranking up the pressure. The 10% could be cranked up by amendment, expecially if the UN gets snarky about not handing over the information. 75 Congresscritters already on board is impressive.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-02 8:49:35 AM|| 2004-12-02 8:49:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#6
.... growing shock and outrage at the scope of historyâs biggest financial scandal, in which Saddam Hussein is alleged to have ripped off $21.3 billion from a humanitarian program .... They [the committee chairmen] say they are waiting to see the results of the U.N.-appointed investigation headed by former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker.

I happened to see a long interview of Volcker the other night on The Charlie Rose Show. One misunderstanding that he repeatedly tried to correct is about this $21 billion. I don't remember the details exactly, but something like 90% of that amount is the value of the oil that Iraq smuggled in from Jordan and other neighboring countries. It has nothing to do with the vouchers and the Food-for-Oil Program itself. His commission is also looking into what the UN might have done to stop that smuggling, so that is why the total number is $21 billion.

In general, Volcker's attitude seemed (to me) to be that he will try to identify relevant problems in UN so that they can be fixed. His attitude definitely did not indicate that he will give ammunition to Congressmen who are looking for reasons to cut UN funding.

He said also that the investigation is much more complicated than he expected. His main problem is not trying to get documents from the UN itself, it's trying to get documents from many countries all over the world, from Russia, China, Europe, and even the USA.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-02 8:54:46 AM|| 2004-12-02 8:54:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Chin music.
You gotta start someplace.

Posted by tu3031 2004-12-02 8:56:48 AM|| 2004-12-02 8:56:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 21 Billion of oil smuggled into Iraq from Jordan???

You're smoking some good stuff today Mike

Posted by JerseyMike 2004-12-02 8:58:25 AM|| 2004-12-02 8:58:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#9
About 90% (I don't remember exactly, but something on that scale) of the $21 billion that Volcker's commission is investigating is the value of the oil that was simply smuggled across Iraq's borders from neighboring countries. It has nothing at all to do with the Food-for-Oil Program. The Volcker commission is examining what the UN might have done, but didn't do, to stop that smuggling. That's where the $21 billion number comes from.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-02 9:02:31 AM|| 2004-12-02 9:02:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Nice of you to update us, MS, but I've reached the point that it doesn't matter what Volcker recommends -- I want the U.N. out of my country and out of my wallet. Now.

Posted by Tom 2004-12-02 9:03:17 AM|| 2004-12-02 9:03:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Get with the program, MS. The oil was smuggled out of Iraq, not into Iraq. Sheeesh!

Posted by Tom 2004-12-02 9:05:28 AM|| 2004-12-02 9:05:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 MS is full of it as usual today. Nom De Plume for Kofi? Or his lawyer.

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-02 9:06:11 AM|| 2004-12-02 9:06:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#13
Many, many people agree with you, Tom. Most of them voted for Patrick Buchanan in the 2000 election. As I recall, he received about one-third of one percent of the votes. The percentage is small, but it was literally hundreds of thousands of voters.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-02 9:06:20 AM|| 2004-12-02 9:06:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Yes, I meant to write that the oil was smuggled out of, not into, Iraq.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-02 9:07:20 AM|| 2004-12-02 9:07:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 many people (like Kofi's staff) would agree with you, Mike. Unfortunately they can't vote in teh elections because they're NOT American

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-02 9:09:34 AM|| 2004-12-02 9:09:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 I suppose you have a reference for that statistic, MS? I did not vote for Patrick Buchanan. Eat your red herrings; stop dropping them here.

Posted by Tom 2004-12-02 9:10:46 AM|| 2004-12-02 9:10:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Both of the major parties firmly support the USA's membership in the UN and have done so for 60 years.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-02 9:15:55 AM|| 2004-12-02 9:15:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 I firmly support the USA's membership in the UN -- but move it out of the U.S. and cut our share to about 1/187th of the budget.

Posted by Tom 2004-12-02 9:18:06 AM|| 2004-12-02 9:18:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 UN under fire? Don't worry it's Mike Sylwester to the rescue! Powered by ignorance and unsourced "stats" Mike leaps to defend the corrupt, the ineffective and the flatulent every where!

If both parties "firmly" support the corrupt UN, then why are there 75 sponsors to cut funding? Why has the leader of the Reublican party said the UN risks becoming the League of Nations, ie irrelevant?

Posted by AllahHateMe 2004-12-02 9:20:24 AM|| 2004-12-02 9:20:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 Looks like he's giving you the silent treatment, AllahHateMe. He hates logic.

Posted by Tom 2004-12-02 9:36:18 AM|| 2004-12-02 9:36:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 Lord Haw Haw might want to check this out from Wretchard.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-02 9:45:43 AM|| 2004-12-02 9:45:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 Oil for Food was a tremendously successful program for the UN bottom line. They could skim off so much in "administration fees" that they really could not care what Saddam did with the rest. The wind up of the program was a major hit to the cash flow at Turtle Bay.

Except I think the last time I can recall the UN still had a $26 billion in escrow at the BNP Bank in Paris they were still ~~siphoning~~managing.

(You just knew France would be involved, didn't you?)

Posted by john 2004-12-02 9:52:42 AM|| 2004-12-02 9:52:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 This is crap. 10% off is still over a billion paid to these corrupt vermin. How 'bout, we cut 25% if you don't come clean, and we cut 15% no matter what?

Posted by BH 2004-12-02 10:15:15 AM|| 2004-12-02 10:15:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 Mrs. D, thanks for the link. Very interesting, indeed.

Posted by Seafarious 2004-12-02 10:43:32 AM|| 2004-12-02 10:43:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 Congress is just "eyeing" a fund cut?

How about just stopping it entirely and making that modern-day League of Nations take up residence someplace else?

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-12-02 10:49:57 AM|| 2004-12-02 10:49:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 Why is Mike S obsessed with defending UN crooks?

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2004-12-02 11:19:29 AM|| [http://radio.weblogs.com/0103811/categories/currentEvents/] 2004-12-02 11:19:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 Because in his good faith effort to be objective, he goes overboard and can see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil with regard to arguments that the UN no longer serves its purposes?

Posted by Jules 187 2004-12-02 11:38:09 AM|| 2004-12-02 11:38:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 Both of the major parties firmly support the USA's membership in the UN and have done so for 60 years.

Yes, but the public's views of the UN are changing, rapidly, as news of the OFF scandal breaches the MSM's walls and reaches the voters. Mike, this one's bigger than a dozen Enrons, and vastly more important. The Republicans are on the right track here, and if the Dems were smart, they'd get on top of prosecuting this as well.

Think about it: the Dems' two major problems are 1) lack of seriousness in adjusting their foreign policy thinking to new realities; and 2) a disconnect with red state voters' core values, especially concerning principles of honesty, character, public virtue and other leadership traits. What better way to turn this around than to reform a corrupt, ineffective UN that is undermining traditionally Democratic goals of eliminating collective security threats and promoting democracy?

I'm betting Barack Obama will figure it out. Keep an eye on him.

Posted by lex 2004-12-02 11:49:50 AM|| 2004-12-02 11:49:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 Take this with a grain of salt but I did a poll of the people I work with (10 registered Engineers, 22 with some college, 24 with high-school diplomas) and 52 were in favor of the US getting out of the UN and getting the UN out of the US. The 4 who thought we should stay in said we should stay in for humanitarian reasons. Everyone wants Kofi Anan out.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2004-12-02 11:54:11 AM|| 2004-12-02 11:54:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#30 I find it really ironic that the MSM can find a conspiracy behind every company that a Republican ever ran, yet they canât see a story when Kofiâs son is on the payroll of the Oil-for-palaces oversight company. If this had been one of the Bush daughters or Jebâs son, you can bet that the LLL MSM would have it lead every hour. 60 minutes would produce documents that showed a direct payoff to Karl Rove, the RNC, and Bush Sr. But Kofi and the gang get a complete pass. Ok I see what side they are on.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2004-12-02 12:07:28 PM|| 2004-12-02 12:07:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Yeah, taking on the UN could be the supreme Sister Souljah moment for the Dems. It will be instrucive to see whether they have the brains/will to take advantage of the opportunity to salvage the party's reputation and national image ... I don't expect them to, but it would be nice to be proven wrong and have them elicit pleasant surprise from me rather than stomach-turning dismay.

Posted by docob 2004-12-02 12:17:18 PM|| 2004-12-02 12:17:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 taking on the UN could be the supreme Sister Souljah moment for the Dems.

From Sister Souljah to Brother Kofi

Posted by lex 2004-12-02 12:30:33 PM|| 2004-12-02 12:30:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Re #29, there you go, Mike. I'm a registered Professional Engineer. So it's not the Patrick Buchanan (PB's) supporters as much as it is the Professional Engineers (PE's). Sort of a conspiracy in which the perps can sometimes be identified by their pocket protectors.

Posted by Tom 2004-12-02 1:09:41 PM|| 2004-12-02 1:09:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Face it MikeS, the UN is simply a very expensive debate society. There's not a reason in the world to pay that kind of money to get so little results.

If the UN were a company, the stockholders would have already sacked the board of directors.

Posted by Crusader 2004-12-02 1:10:39 PM|| 2004-12-02 1:10:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Deacon sounds good till you realize that your sample self selected to live in East Tennessee. :)

Posted by Shipman 2004-12-02 1:17:35 PM|| 2004-12-02 1:17:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 My money's on the Dems joining Coleman's bandwagon. Nothing but upside here, no risk.

Posted by lex 2004-12-02 1:19:44 PM|| 2004-12-02 1:19:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 count me as another Registered Professional Engineer who says BBZZZTTT! Wrong Answer! to Mike S's defense of the UN, or could you tell?

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-02 1:33:22 PM|| 2004-12-02 1:33:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Mike sounds like an idealist. A True Believer, even.

Posted by eLarson 2004-12-02 1:57:57 PM|| 2004-12-02 1:57:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Good one, Shipman! We actually have 2 from India, 3 from Philadelphia, 2 hispanics, and the rest of us are just ordinary, dumb red staters of varying origins.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2004-12-02 2:00:41 PM|| 2004-12-02 2:00:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 John Kerry during the campaign: âWithin weeks of being inaugurated, I will return to the UN and I will literally, formally rejoin the community of nations and turn over a proud new chapter in America's relationship with the worldâ

The U.S. dodged a bullet when this loser, well, LOST!

Posted by Justrand 2004-12-02 2:03:19 PM|| 2004-12-02 2:03:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Had Kerry Souljah'ed the UN and MikeyBoy, and spoke some sense on Iraq, he might well have won. Bush significantly increased his share of the vote of Democrats who voted for Gore-Lieberman in 2000-- at least 50,000 Gore voters in New York City alone. I would guess that at least that many Gore-Lieberman voters in Florida switched to Bush. Ditto for Ohio. Had the Dems nominated a candidate who could have retained all the Lieberman Democrats, they might well have won. Nader was non-existent and the Dems' big turnout was overwhelmingly from African-Americans, not from anti-Iraq War kids.

Obama, if he's smart, is taking note. If he were to get out front in the anti-Kofi bandwagon he'll quickly gain national stature on nat. sec'y issues and win respect among red-staters, all without sacrificing any support among african- or hispanic americans. No brainer, really.

Posted by lex 2004-12-02 2:23:52 PM|| 2004-12-02 2:23:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 I am a registered professional engineer, and I do not play one on TV, heh heh.

I would just soon fold support for the UN and set up a bunch of bilateral or limited multilateral agreements to achieve the good works that the UN is supposed to do. The UN has a severe accountability problem. They have lived too long on the flying the family of nations and brotherhood of man flags and not on getting their business done.

However, I am also a pragmatist and realize that the US will not give the UN the old heave ho. So I will take Senator Coleman's 10% cut with the promise of further tightening of the screws. Hitting them in their pocketbook seems to be the best strategy. They probably blew through their bribes and administrative fees by now.

With the US in the UN, it is a glorified Debating Society, with the US out of the UN it is just a debating society. If we cannot boot their asses out of Manhattan now, we will just have to do it on the installment plan.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-12-02 2:32:43 PM|| 2004-12-02 2:32:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Because every good conspiracy needs a voice of reason: I'm a former satcom engineer and I believe that we should (unfortunately) remain part of the UN for now.

Of course MS won't approve of my reasoning: the UN is so vile and stunningly corrupt that it represents a very clear danger to liberty planet wide. We cannot leave until we can ensure beyond a shadow of a doubt that our departure will finally drive a stake through the heart of this horrendous monster we've helped to create. Failing to do so would result in the Eurocrats attempting to quickly morph the UN into a true world government with the predictable disastrous results.

Like it or not the UN is the world's only true worldwide bureaucracy and as such it represents far too great a danger to freedom and liberty to simply ignore. It must be destroyed utterly.

Posted by AzCat 2004-12-02 2:42:45 PM|| 2004-12-02 2:42:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 A friend of mine did a Google search of "Get the US out of the UN", and came up with over 13 million hits. That's a lot of talk. The UN is totally corrupt, and is beyond overhaul. The only choice is to start over from scratch. I like the idea of an association of democratic nations, with membership limited to those states which truly operate a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people". Of course, we need to get our own house in order first...

Posted by Old Patriot 2004-12-02 2:44:58 PM|| [http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2004-12-02 2:44:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 " Obama, if he's smart, is taking note. If he were to get out front in the anti-Kofi bandwagon he'll quickly gain national stature on nat. sec'y issues and win respect among red-staters, all without sacrificing any support among african- or hispanic americans. No brainer, really.

Lex must think Obama wants to be president....
That this will get him elected.
Would it really be that easy ??
And oh yeah ... who the hell is MS ... I think he is a red who likes to post disagreeable comments.
( gets everyone hopping mad ). And lex, why do you group Hispanic and Afican - American voters together ?? Didn't realize the hispanics cared that much for Mr. Obama ....... Stumped ??

Posted by tex 2004-12-02 2:59:46 PM|| 2004-12-02 2:59:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 AC, agree, but there's no reason to pay for anything other than the debating society. If we ever do get out, I sure hope we don't get into any association of democratic nations. Let's go back to the pre-Wilsonian days where when countries wanted to do something, they got together and did it. We don't need a UN or any other organization that aspires to be a one world government. And they all do sooner or later. The Mike Sylwester's of the world get attracted to them, take them over and try to implement their agenda through them. Fi.

If these two bit countries want to be part of the one world government, they should apply for statehood.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-02 3:09:05 PM|| 2004-12-02 3:09:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 I doubt a cut is going to get us what is needed. Think about it-what is the primary economic principle of most UN members? That rich nations are obligated to equalize global wealth by giving their money to poorer ones. Are we a rich or a poor nation? So, they see our paying 25% as our duty.

So, let's say the 10% cut goes through anyway-we remain a member and the UN budget gets recalculated to show that a rich country (the US) is paying less. Will that make the UN more likely to
A) Learn the lesson the US is trying to send about rooting out corruption and restructuring the UN so that it fulfills its obligations? or
B) Make anti-US members even more rabidly anti-US (resulting in even more anti-Semitism, threats of or actual sanctions, fines, obstructions, resolutions against the US, etc)?

Posted by jules2 2004-12-02 3:16:51 PM|| 2004-12-02 3:16:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 We've got a veto. All the UN can do without our permission is talk. Better to let them talk.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-02 3:19:59 PM|| 2004-12-02 3:19:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 Jules is right ... a cut will not do anything.
We budget 1.2 billion a year.
That is chicken feed when a simple scandal can generate 20 times that much.

Posted by tex 2004-12-02 3:22:00 PM|| 2004-12-02 3:22:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 tex,
Lex must think Obama wants to be president....
That this will get him elected.

I don't particularly care about, or care for, Obama. He strikes me as a rather shallow, left-leaning isolationist. However, he is a fresh face in a corrupt and dessiccated old party, one desperately in need of ideas and new blood, and I'm hoping, I suppose that someone, anyone, in this party will grasp the need to finally get serious about national security. And stop repeating the idiotic mantras that the UN cares about justice and that the French are on our side.

Posted by lex 2004-12-02 3:54:29 PM|| 2004-12-02 3:54:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 Fully understand Lex.
Think they need a major overhaul.
Believe it or not, I saw Lieberman on Fox the other night .... he seems about as serious about national security as any Democrat I have seen. They have to do better.

Posted by tex 2004-12-02 4:13:21 PM|| 2004-12-02 4:13:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 To the Saddam rape room with the whole lot of them.

I think Mrs. Bush should serve "W" some nails for breakfast, perhaps a eviction notice for the UN would be forthcoming?

Posted by Capt America 2004-12-02 4:30:00 PM|| 2004-12-02 4:30:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 Lieberman's a decent guy but he looks like a chow puppy and sounds like a geek. They need a leader who's at least easy on the eyes and ears. I don't see anyone on the horizon.

Posted by lex 2004-12-02 4:49:51 PM|| 2004-12-02 4:49:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 "looks like a chow puppy and sounds like a geek"

Dont talk about Hillary that way !!!

Posted by Bill Clinton 2004-12-02 4:54:55 PM|| 2004-12-02 4:54:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 I believe it was an RBer who figured we should stay and just vote no on every damn thing. Coke machine maintenance NO!, fix the leaks on the 5th floor, NO!. Perhaps a workable idea.

Posted by Shipman 2004-12-02 5:14:58 PM|| 2004-12-02 5:14:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 Didn't Don King support Bush in the last election? Why not make him our U.N. Ambassador? This would send several clear signals to that august body as to just how seriously we take them!!

Posted by Justrand 2004-12-02 6:27:06 PM|| 2004-12-02 6:27:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 how bout this cut onthe UN. Don't give them shit and have our troops and police arrest everyone of the diplomats who have commited crimes in our country and cried diplomatic immuntiy. Then gently shove the rest out the back door and turn the building into some nice condos

Posted by smokeysinse 2004-12-02 6:35:09 PM|| 2004-12-02 6:35:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 Lib.Arts: Mathematics and Dance (but got my Mrs.), Ivory Tower baby, now corporate wife. My first impulse reading the responses to the articles was, "Get out!" But the arguments for staying in make sense, so long as we manage the situation, and don't take the details too seriously. However, at the current price, we clearly aren't getting our money's worth, and I really like the idea of linking our payments to tracking down the missing Oil for Food monies. I would love to see us sue the main recipients for our cost to maintain the embargo they worked so hard to undermine -- it wouldn't go anywhere, but would certainly get their attention!

As for arresting the UN diplomats: I'm pretty sure they have diplomatic immunity, but surely such people can be declared persona non grata, and shipped home en masse? (Don't those foreign phrases make me sound as if I were intelligent!)

Posted by trailing wife 2004-12-03 12:31:05 AM|| 2004-12-03 12:31:05 AM|| Front Page Top

00:35 trailing wife
00:31 trailing wife
23:51 mojo
23:50 trailing wife
23:47 Shaiter Spoluper1654
23:44 Mark Espinola
23:44 2b
23:39 Shaiter Spoluper1654
23:35 Bomb-a-rama
23:32 Ptah
23:31 Phil Fraering
23:29 Mike Sylwester
23:27 Alaska Paul
23:26 Mark Espinola
23:24 .com
23:19 Dar
23:16 Zenster
23:15 Dar
23:14 trailing wife
23:11 Bomb-a-rama
23:10 Mike Sylwester
23:08 Bomb-a-rama
23:08 .com
23:07 Zenster