UN's Kofi Annan doesnt live in a REAL WORLD

Search
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,299
Tokens
I'm fairly sure he lives in a real world.
icon_razz.gif
 
Secretary-General, saying he expected UN weapons inspections to resume

The USA need to ask these folks to find another home... Paris would be a good place for the UN to relocate.

- - -
"This is the business we've chosen." - Hyman Roth
 
radio, EVEN YOU
icon_smile.gif
must know that statement is stupid and out of touch with reality.

- - -
"This is the business we've chosen." - Hyman Roth
 
One that was just as funny was the other day when the French were talking some bullshit about objecting to the US running Iraq post war. Those idiots are living under the influence of something.

"Walter Williams is my hero" outandup 2002
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,854
Tokens
Kofi misses the spotlight ... here's the rest of the news, with the funny parts highlighted ...

--------------------------------------------

As coalition forces hunt for weapons of mass destruction, Mr. Annan said according to rules set by the UN Security Council only UN weapons inspectors can determine whether Iraq is clean.

"[The inspections] have only been suspended temporarily because it's inoperable given the situation on the ground," Mr. Annan said. He added the inspectors planned to resume their work as soon as it was safe to return.

His statement sets the stage for more friction with Washington, which has been quietly hiring its own experts to verify whether weapons found violate the 1991 Gulf War truce banning chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

Mr. Annan spoke as U.S. forces chased down leads from captured Iraqis and seized documents about possible chemical and biological weapons sites. A suspicious plant captured by U.S. troops was also being evaluated.

Several UN inspectors who recently returned from Iraq believe stocks of anthrax, VX and other chemical and biological agents remain hidden and U.S. specialists will uncover them.

"I think they'll find a lot," said one senior inspector, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "They'll find archives, they will find scientists who are willing to talk and definitely facilities that have been producing weapons."


Despite eight years of inspections in the 1980s and another four months that ended just last week, the UN staffers failed to fully disarm Iraq.

But interviews by U.S. forces will not employ the genteel tactics used by the United Nations. Scientists who do not talk willingly will likely be held in an interrogation facility, say people involved in the planning.

U.S. officials yesterday appeared to reserve the right to at least limit future UN inspections, which have been the responsibility of the UN Monitoring Inspections and Verification Commission.

"UNMOVIC's job was to verify the disarmament of Saddam. But Saddam did not co-operate at all, and therefore there is a whole new situation on the ground," said one.

"Clearly, once the situation is a bit more calmed down, we'll be able to carry out an intense hunt for weapons of mass destruction. There will be some need for verification. But the U.S. government can't say, at this point, what that role might be for UNMOVIC."

Any U.S. attempt to block new UN inspections will face opposition in the Security Council, already the scene of clashes over humanitarian relief and whether the UN or Washington will administer a post-war Iraq.

U.S. officials in Iraq are questioning two captured Iraqi generals about chemical and biological weapons, said a U.S. commander in the region.

The military is also following up on a cache of documents found by commandos in western Iraq, said General Tommy Franks, head of U.S. Central Command.

Central Command said troops were examining several "sites of interest," but it was premature to call a plant in Najaf, described as suspicious by some officials, a chemical weapons factory.

The 40-hectare complex is near military barracks and surrounded by an electric fence. It had been camouflaged to look like the surrounding desert.

"We do have very clear plans in the event that we find a possible site," Group Captain Al Lockwood said at Central Command's regional headquarters in Qatar.

"We ... take our own team in to look and see if the site is, or could be, involved in chemical weapons or weapons of mass destruction. And then we look for independent verification to ensure that that's the case, and then we will go public on it."

The United States and Britain said yesterday their forces have found no evidence of chemical or biological weapons so far. But defence officials insisted uncovering banned weapons was only a matter of time.

"Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, we know that," said one. "We expect to find them."
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,299
Tokens
Logic of Iraq War?
By Peter Freundlich

All right let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly. We are going to ignore the United Nations, in order to make clear to Saddam
Hussein; that the United Nations cannot be ignored. We’re going to wage war
to preserve the U.N.’s ability to avert war. The paramount principle is that the U.N.’s word must be taken seriously, and if we have to subvert its word to guarantee that it is, then, by gum, we will. Peace is too important
not to take up arms, to defend. Am I getting this right? Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq is to eviscerate the democracy of the Security Council, then we are honor bound to do that too, because democracy,
as we define it, is too important to be stopped by a little thing like democracy, as they define it. Also, in dealing with a man who brooks no dissension at home, we cannot afford dissension among ourselves. We
must speak with one voice against Saddam Hussein’s failure to allow opposing voices to be heard. We are sending our gathered might to the Persian Gulf, to make the point that might does not make right, as Saddam Hussein seems to
think it does; and we are twisting the arms of the opposition, until it agrees to let us oust the regime that twists the arms of the
opposition.
We cannot leave in power a dictator who ignores his own people, and if our people, and people elsewhere in the world, fail to understand that, then we have no choice, but to ignore them.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,854
Tokens
"All right let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly. We are going to ignore the United Nations, in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein; that the United Nations cannot be ignored"

He couldn't even get the first point correctly. We are not going to war to make clear to Saddam that the United Nations cannot be ignored - they've already PROVED to Saddam that they can be and have been for 12 years - we are going to war to make clear to Saddam that the United States will not be ignored.
 
icon_rolleyes.gif
Liberals
icon_rolleyes.gif


The UN as a whole is "in bed" with Saddam.

Hopefully soon, the death bed...

- - -
"This is the business we've chosen." - Hyman Roth
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
14,280
Tokens
Jazz, I think the point there was that UN Res 1441 promised 'serious sonsequences' if not complied with. From what the Admin has said, this war is those "serious consequences" promised in retaliation for 'ignoring' the mandate of 1441 and for obstructing the UN, not US, inspectors. The writer has it correct because the Admin has in fact used UN Res 1441 as justification for the war.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,854
Tokens
The writer is full of shit, D2 - the admin may indeed be 'using' that resolution's terms as some international emollient but the only reason that ****ing resolution ever GOT to the UN in the first place was because the US decided it's national security demanded it, not because the majority of the world demanded it. Thank God we're not so blinded to the utter hypocrisy and duplictness of the UN in general that we sat on our ass and did nothing, while carols of 'More Time! Peace! Saddam will Disarm' rang out in the halls of an institution like the UN who had nations unwilling to face the truth about themselves and the nature of what they were asking.

F-U-C-K the UN. That's been my opinion on this forum for 2 weeks and will remain so for the forseeable future. They can inspect Hell for all I care - and I doubt they'd find Satan there, either.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,854
Tokens
One other note: the UN allowed the slaughter of over 800,000 Rwandans in 1994 WHEN THEY ALREADY KNEW IT WAS HAPPENING.

Why on Earth would I respect this organization as some bogus 'peace-loving' institution???????????????????????
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
14,280
Tokens
You're right. You shouldn't. The Admin should have been honest from the start and taken your attitude. But you (well, not YOU) can't have your cake and eat it too. Once you decide to use and go thru the UN then you should abide by its premises. If the Admin felt that way about the UN they should havr resigned from it without getting a Res and gone on its own. Unfortunately this Admin has little foresight with its policies. If the Admin has the **** the UN attitude then why did it twist the arm of dozens of countries for their votes. What a ****ing waste of diplomatic capital.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,854
Tokens
Probably, D2, a mis-guided attempt to appease the Democrats - I honestly don't know. Or, maybe they thought they wouldn't get back-stabbed by the French, took them at their word and went the UN route. Regardless, all along the US always reserved its right to act even on its own if it felt it needed to, and Bush said so many times. When the UN failed to have conviction in its own resolutions, we acted. Good.
icon_smile.gif
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,299
Tokens
Once you decide to use and go thru the UN then you should abide by its premises.

The following is excerpted from an article entitled "Not the Full Story," by Doug Ireland on www.tompaine.com



In the course of a rosy portrayal of the progress of the war -- which Iraqi resistance in the next 48 hours showed was premature -- Gen. Franks inadvertently had a moment of honesty. Asked whether he'd been surprised by anything in the war, Franks said he hadn't -- because the war had been planned for "at least a year." This impolitic and embarrassingly undiplomatic admission -- which made a mockery of George Bush's charade in going to the United Nations -- contradicted the president's repeated assertions that "everything possible" had been done to avoid war.
 
this war was being planned way before this cocksucker ever took office !

I remember people bitching over a BJ and now you got this shit !

--------------------------------

25 to life because you couldn't controll your anger
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,810
Messages
13,573,507
Members
100,873
Latest member
nhacaixin88
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com