Solar
(261 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-09-05 04:06 PM
Original message |
"The UN is too corrupt..." |
|
Edited on Thu Jun-09-05 04:06 PM by Solar
I hear this argument every time neocons try to defend Bush's cowboy war in Iraq. They moan on about 'corruption' in the UN and how that supposedly gives us license to do whatever the hell we want because we can't trust anyone else to help us. In fact I heard this argument just two nights ago in a class.
My reply: ... But there is no corruption in Congress or the Presidency?
Tom Delay alone probably has more scandals than than the entire UN! I don't believe that the UN is completely pure and 100% innocent, but in comparison, the UN makes the White House look black with guilt.
The moment some neocon tries to spout garbage about France, Germany or Russia getting secret kickbacks from Saddam for Oil-For-Food, just reply "so the fact that Haliburton is now getting the money under the table makes it all better?"
Don't let the neocons try to sidetrack you with a wild goose chase and pointless diversions, take the debate into your hands and argue the facts. For far too long we Democrats have let the neocons control the discussion. Its time to counter the attack and put them on the defensive.
|
EFerrari
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-09-05 04:07 PM
Response to Original message |
1. The U.N is only as good as its leadership in the Security Council |
emcguffie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-09-05 04:16 PM
Response to Original message |
2. People confuse the UN -- |
|
and its Secretariat, which is headed by the SG. The CEO, so to speak, of the UN is indeed the Member States. The SG cannot make the Security Council do anything, nor can the SG decide what the UN should/will do.
And back when the Oil for Food corruption was going on, it was not much of a secret. In fact, it was well known at the UN, particularly by all the journalists accredited there at that time as well, and it was the Security Council that declined to do anything about it.
|
Kota
(658 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-09-05 04:18 PM
Response to Original message |
3. If thats the case, Bolton will fit right in. |
Meeker Morgan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-09-05 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. I never went for the big anti-Bolton thing. |
|
No I don't like him. But I don't like any Bush appointee.
The UN ambassador was never considered particularly important before. It's pretty much a ceremonial position.
Yeah he's a stinker.
Hey mister Bolton! Bag that weird cookie duster.
As for the rhetoric that Bolton will destroy the UN, if that is Bush's intent (I don't think it is), it doesn't matter who the ambassador is.
|
damntexdem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-09-05 04:42 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Compared to the Bushistas, the UN ... |
|
is as pure as the driven snow.
|
noamnety
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-09-05 04:44 PM
Response to Original message |
5. It's part of our checks and balances |
|
If they are corrupt, we should be able to investigate and call them out on it. Likewise, if the US administration is corrupt, the UN functions as a check on their actions. Thus it's no surprise the neocons oppose the UN.
|
Kellanved
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-09-05 05:40 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I have yet to see a source mentioning Germany in the kickback deals. It is a pretty good indicator for the agenda of the author.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 11:39 AM
Response to Original message |