It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UN condemns american methods in Falluja

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 11:52 AM
link   
if you look up "irrelevant" in the dictionary.....the first def you'll find:

The U.N. condemns "_____________"

see also: Corrupt


*edit* spelling - ironically


[edit on 18-11-2004 by rayzor11]




posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 11:56 AM
link   

The so called "scandal" of the UN is a front that US is using to divert attention from the fiasco of the war in Iraq.


By that same token the UN members involved are also using America's involvement in the Iraq conflict to divert attention from their involvement in the robbery of food and medication to 1) pad their own pockets and 2) allow Saddam to build up a nice arsenal and personal wealth.

Sorry, it works both ways. America isn't always the villain. Learning that will help you acheive some objectivity.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Still it is the only organisation that tries to get the world to come to the table and live with each other no matter how different each countries beliefs are. It reminds me of the cartoons in my history book. Like everything in history when used as an anology it's far off but scary none the less. On one page there is a picture of a village in Ethiopia with people sitting around huts with children playing, at the bottom of the page it's labeled "savages". Next to it is a picture of the same village with bomb craters and dead people everywhere, this picture is labeled "civilization". At the time Mussolini claimed he was bringing civilization to savages which was the basis for this political cartoon. On the next page was another cartoon where Mussolini is laughing saying "The league? Pah! The league is weak, they can do nothing" then a woman holding a sign with rights and wrongs of Abyssinia written on it says "but aren't you the league?"

Anyway i think America needs to work with the UN to make it stronger rather than abandoning it because it's countries like the US that have the power to make the UN stronger. I'm sure if given more time and evidence they probably would have given the green light to go to Iraq, or maybe not because it's unlikely evidence of WMD would have been uncovered by the inspectors if the US still hasn't found much even now.





[edit on 18-11-2004 by Trent]



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trent

Anyway i think America needs to work with the UN to make it stronger rather than abandoning it because it's countries like the US that have the power to make the UN stronger. I'm sure if given more time and evidence they probably would have given the green light to go to Iraq, or maybe not because it's unlikely evidence of WMD would have been uncovered by the inspectors if the US still hasn't found much even now.
[edit on 18-11-2004 by Trent]

HOAH! man someone that shares the same view as me!
thats what i think.
we should put money into the UN and make countries work together and make sure terror is attacked world wide and not just by a coalition.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Devilswasp, how much money should the US give to the UN?



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 01:49 PM
link   
The UN should be renamed the "Neville Chamberlain Institute of International Relations".

As far as I am concerned, the world complex should be moved out of this country...lock, stock, and barrel. Lets the Europeans, who value it's worth so much, bear the cost and the annoyance of that corrupt and duplicitous organization.

A noble and righteous idea has degenerated into a den of theives and spies. We need to dump the UN and reinvest in NATO.




posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by knights5629
Devilswasp, how much money should the US give to the UN?

who said anything about money?

i think the UN should be restaffed. also why spend money on the war on terror if only 2 countries take part?
why not take out the head then the body not the other way around?


oh reallly so you wished we didnt go into iraq with you?
so much for mutual cooperation huh.

[edit on 18-11-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:24 PM
link   



we should put money into the UN



Devilwasp,
You said that we need to put more money into the UN. I was just wondering how much more do we need to put into a system that is consistently anti- American?

According to my limited knowledge, the US "dues" to the UN makes up 25% of the UN's budget, and that was in 1998. From 1994 to 1998, the US spent around $ 9 billion dollars to help fund UN peacekeepers. Personally, I feel that if the UN feels the need to condemn us then we need to withdraw from the UN totally, money and all.

[edit on 18-11-2004 by knights5629]



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The U.N. theft and payoffs KILLED Iraqis. People didn't get
food, medicine, education, protection ..... The U.N. KILLED
and KILLED and KILLED! It's responsible for the deaths of
Iraqis (because of the billions it stole) and it's responsible for
the slaughters in Uganda, Rwanda, and Somolia because it
did NOTHING.


The US is responsible for the deaths because they refused to lift the sanctions.
Oil for food at least allowed some money to get into the country.

The UN is not the one that stole $21 billion BTW.
That was Saddam.

You are just trying to deflect from the slaughter in Fallujah which has killed around 1,600 people. You want to draw attention away from the massive destruction from the US bombing and the actions from the troops like preventing aid from being delivered and shutting off water and electricity to make the people there suffer.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by knights5629



Devilwasp,
You said that we need to put more money into the UN. I was just wondering how much more do we need to put into a system that is consistently anti- American?

its not "anti american" because its made up of diffrent states.
yes you are right i did say that , allow me to rephrase it.
"we should put more effort into the UN"
i was also meaning every nation.
[qoute]
According to my limited knowledge, the US "dues" to the UN makes up 25% of the UN's budget, and that was in 1998. From 1994 to 1998, the US spent around $ 9 billion dollars to help fund UN peacekeepers. Personally, I feel that if the UN feels the need to condemn us then we need to withdraw from the UN totally, money and all.

so if you pay your taxes and you get arrested you should stop paying your taxes?
your part of the UN and frankly the US cant leave it.
the UN can condem you because they are(hell WE are) your peers. let him be judged by his peers is the attitude isnt it?



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I agree with you AceofBase the death so far all over Iraq are rasing some concern in the international comunity, we can not denied that this war is everything but for liberation.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The 'scandal' part of all this is that France, Germany, and Russia
SOLD their Security Council votes. They didn't care about people
being mass murdered in Iraq ... they sold their votes so that they
could continue to get illegal money ... money that they stole from
the Iraqis who were being mass murdered.

Nothing 'so called' about all this. This is BIG and it's DEADLY.



Germany sold their vote?
Where was Germany in the Oil for Food scandal?
Where's the oil that they recieved?

Why did those countries side with a country they were getting so little money from in comparison with their trade with the US if they were so interested in money?

Why were the millions of citizens in those countries against this damn war?
Were they getting paid off?



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:46 PM
link   
If this action in Fallujah had been carried out by Saddam, it would have been proof to all of the coservatives that he was a war criminal.


dh

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 04:45 PM
link   
There seems to be some kind of delusion here that the US government and the General Assembly are in some kind of disagreement
While the truth is the US Govt. and the UN are on an identical agenda, that seeks to work its way round throgh superficial debate and global manipulation to reach the same point or outcome
By the way here's an article on the US use of chemical weapons in Fallujah
trackingterrorism.com...

[edit on 18-11-2004 by dh]



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 04:51 PM
link   
It's perfectly alright for the UN to condemn such actions. But as has been stated before, it really is meaningless when nations that still practice the slave trade end up being rotated into the human right commission.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Again, to those who insist we have to scrap the UN... first... it's not the USA's decision to make. Second, you forget that programs like UNICEF and UNESCO do A LOT of good in third-world countries, educating mothers on how to care for children, reporting on the impact of disease or war on kids, promoting education for all, especially girls...

The UN may have problems... well, if it's broken, fix it, don't ditch it.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Flyerfan,

You're getting very redundant and your basless accusations that the U.N. is innefective is without merit; simply stating that the U.N. was never effective in Rawanda, can be turned around and stated that the American goverment, whom would have had the military power to stop such a genocide, was just as responsible for it than Kofi Annan and the 'infamous' black blox.

www.mrcranky.com...




Last year, a report by a distinguished panel convened by the Organization for African Unity concluded that Clinton knew exactly what was happening in Rwanda. Information from U.S. intelligence agencies, the State Department and U.N. forces in Rwanda warned of the massacres before they began.

The United Nations is obligated to intervene in genocide under the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention. But Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stymied that intervention. "At every stage," the report says, "Albright could be found tossing up roadblocks to speedy decisions for effective action."

"President Clinton insists that his failure was a function of ignorance," the report states. "The facts show, however, that the American government knew precisely what was happening ... but domestic politics took priority over the lives of helpless Africans." In other words, Clinton lied -- and, as David Corn points out in an article in Covert Action Quarterly, "Lying about genocide is a bit more outrageous than lying about sex."



The U.N. is currently working to bring peace to Sudan, and where is America? 10 thousand dead every month, is this not genocide? What constitutes as genocide in the eyes of America? Let me see, is it using weapons we supplied to foriegn to kill 5000 people?

The U.N. is the policital clout that forced the Sudanese goverment to accept the resolution against it.

Remember something, the U.S. still owes some 1.37 billion to the U.N., even countries like Fiji and Pakistan can pay thier own headway, where as, the U.S. simply refuses to pay it's debt.

How can you blame the U.N. for not doing it's job when the U.S. simply vetos everything thrown?

www.commondreams.org...
www.al-bushra.org...
in.news.yahoo.com...
www.ifamericansknew.org...




The Bush administration used the veto four times to protect Israel: on Feb. 17, 1989, to kill a draft strongly deploring Israel's repression of the Palestinian uprising and calling on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians; on June 9, 1989, deploring Israel's violation of the human rights of the Palestinians; on Nov. 7, 1989, demanding Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and calling on Israel to allow a fact-finding mission to observe Israel's suppression tactics against the Palestinian uprising; and, finally, on May 31, 1990, calling for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli-occupied lands.


www.ualberta.ca...

This is from the University in went to,




1972-2002 Vetoes from the USA
---
Year -----The USA voted against each of the following resolutions:

1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in
air raids.
1973 Affirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw
from the occupied territories.
1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories.
1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
1976 Affirms the rights of the Palestinians.
1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security.


This ones hillarious: 1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security.

And they vetoed that.

Once again, where was the U.S. in Rawanda, where was the U.S. in Sudan?

Deep



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Its reports like this that give people good reasons to get annoyed with the UN.
Just how would have the UN delt with the insurgents in Falluja? Of course people were going to suffer there in the middle of a war!
I guess the UN would have droped leaflets saying how much human life means to them.


at you not your dumb ass comment, just you. Just my oppinion so you can't attack it.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheEXone
300,000 people have left, by their own estimates only 150 families are still in the city. While the suffering of even 150 families is terrible, its not on the scale that people are talking about.


[edit on 18-11-2004 by TrickmastertricK]


Who's estimate? Iraq's? The UN's? US's? The red cross's? Your's?

I heard on KPFK pacifica either on Democracy now or uprising that at least 100,000 civilians where still in the city and that the millitary was stopping unarmed men from leaving with thier women and children, bascily sentencing them to a killing field.

Many families couldn't leave by vurture that they had no place else to go.

Also i read that by the millitaries own count only 10 rebels killed where foreign to iraq. This means they where all just killing iraqies who don't want the US in thier country.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join