Chavez at the UN

[B. Max]

I fail to understand why the US hasn't deposed Chavez. He is a seirous danger to our vital interests.

Chavez sees himself in some sort of apprenticeship to take over from poppa Fidel as a south American king pin. I would say his latest performance at the cesspool of corruption has confirmed to Americans that they are surrounded by idiots and despots who shouldn't even be allowed into the US. Even some democrats have come out in support of Bush. Americans should be demanding the UN pack up and get out. Let them set up shop in some back water like Venezuela.

[Higgly]

I fail to understand why the US hasn't deposed Chavez. He is a seirous danger to our vital interests.

You mean like Mossadegh in Iran and Allende in Chile? Mossadegh was a democratically elected leader who threatened to nationalize the oil industry (controlled at the time by what was to become the British American Oil Company), Allende the copper industry (Kennicott).

Yeah that went really well. Iran ended up with the Shah and Chile with Pinochet. Both star pupils from the CIA school of torture. Anybody who swallows the Bush doctrine about freedom and democracy is naive. It is all about capitalism baby, and don't you forget it.

I don't see Chavez as being any less of a fruitcake than Bush with his "Axis of evil." crap. Just a lot less dangerous.

[jdobbin]

It's just being reported now that Venezuelan foreign minister is being detained in New York.

I guess all those people in the U.S. who said that they should arrest Venezuelan leaders are seeing it happen now.

There's more on it coming out now.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/23/fm.detained/index.html

[KrustyKidd]

It's just being reported now that Venezuelan foreign minister is being detained in New York.

I guess all those people in the U.S. who said that they should arrest Venezuelan leaders are seeing it happen now.

There's more on it coming out now.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/23/fm.detained/index.html

I think you misinterpreted the article which BTW, was written in plain English. He "is not being detained now" but the story states plainly that he was detained and offered his seat on the plane which he refused.

Tin foil hat time.

A senior White House official said airport officials did not know who Maduro was. Maduro was screened and asked to go through a second security check, and a disagreement ensued when the foreign minister refused, the official said.

After the disagreement was resolved, Maduro was given permission to board his plane but opted instead to stay in New York, the White House official said.

Who else had had problems going through airport security due to some dire dark right wing conspiracy?

Rush Limbaugh

Limbaugh, 55, was detained for more than three hours Monday at Palm Beach International Airport after he returned on his private plane from a vacation in the Dominican Republic.

JK Rowling

American airport staff almost stopped Harry Potter author JK Rowling boarding a flight because she would not part with the manuscript for the final book.

Rowling was not prepared to stow her top secret notes for book number seven in her check-in baggage when she flew back from a book festival in August.

Eventually she was allowed to take them on the flight, bound in elastic bands.

Retired Gen. Joe Foss

PHOENIX, Arizona (CNN) -- Retired Gen. Joe Foss, 86, one of the most highly decorated U.S. war veterans, recently was detained at a security checkpoint at the Phoenix, Arizona, airport because he was carrying an item with sharp edges.

The sharp object turned out to be the Congressio

Margaret Jackson, chairman of the Australia based airline Quantas

Margaret Jackson, chairman of the Australia based airline, was in Beijing Wednesday speaking to reporters when she told the story of how last year she was detained for an hour at Los Angeles International Airport.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of incidents such as these and none have any dire or dark conspiracy behnd them. You don't actually interpret news like this all the time do you?

[geoffrey]

I thought diplomats didn't have to be screened?

Though apparently this guy just had no idea what he was doing.

[betsy]

When asked to comment regarding Chavez' theatrical debut, Condoleeza Rice just sort of shrugged and said to this effect: she wouldn't dignify such remarks which is clearly unbecoming of a political leader.

Wonder if that was why they were quiet during the Chretien and Martin era of Bush-bashing fest.

Back to Chavez at the UN...gotta admit...he makes a good court jester.

[jdobbin]

I think you misinterpreted the article which BTW, was written in plain English. He "is not being detained now" but the story states plainly that he was detained and offered his seat on the plane which he refused.

Tin foil hat time.

I initially just reported what was on the zipper because that was all the information that was out. I re-edited when more information came out but didn't comment further as I'm working now. In plain English though, the zipper initially said "being detained."

And diplomats are treated much different than Rush Limbaugh. At least they are supposed to be. I'm sure the State department is doing a lot of screaming at the airport staff right now.

[KrustyKidd]

I thought diplomats didn't have to be screened?

Though apparently this guy just had no idea what he was doing.

Of course they do. They have diplomatic immunity from legal prosecution and their diplomatic pouches are from my understanding immune from being searched.

[jbg]

You mean like Mossadegh in Iran and Allende in Chile? Mossadegh was a democratically elected leader who threatened to nationalize the oil industry (controlled at the time by what was to become the British American Oil Company), Allende the copper industry (Kennicott).

OK.So it's alright for a rogue regime to seize private property that another company or person developed, made valuable and paid taxes on? Why should any company go the trouble of building property if it's subject to expropriation. Frankly, I believe the US made a big mistake in not deposing Qadafi, King Faisal and similar rules for the 1969-1975 wave of nationalisations of the petroleum industries. Ditto Cardenas (I think) in Mexico in 1938. There's a concept, foreign to some, of paying for assets you want. Higgly, do you really believe the Mexican, Libyan, Saudi, take your pick, people have benefited from their government's theft of resources, or do you think the money is in Swiss bank accounts, blown at the croupier's table in Monaco, or invested in reckless schemes?

It is all about capitalism baby, and don't you forget it.

And that's bad, why?

Hasn't capitalism created the greatest amount of prosperity for the greatest number of people?

I don't see Chavez as being any less of a fruitcake than Bush with his "Axis of evil." crap. Just a lot less dangerous.

I don't see any reason to respond to statements that are not thought out, and are just posted for shock value.

[KrustyKidd]

And diplomats are treated much different than Rush Limbaugh. At least they are supposed to be. I'm sure the State department is doing a lot of screaming at the airport staff right now.

Ya sure they are. Read the article, the guy was not recognized by the security staff and for good reason hence, he was treated just like you would be if you claimed to be the Queen of England when protesting the security at Winipeg International. Bet you couldn't pick him out of a line up either unless of course, you know him and what he looks like.

A senior White House official said airport officials did not know who Maduro was. The Venezuelan government never made arrangements through State Department Diplomatic Security, which is customary when a high-ranking foreign official is traveling, the official said.

Further to the above

Maduro, his wife and child arrived at the airport 30 minutes before their flight to Caracas via Miami, Florida, and paid for their tickets in cash, raising red flags with airport security, the official said.

Maduro was screened and asked to go through a second security check, and a disagreement ensued when the foreign minister refused and began making calls on his cell phone, the official said.

Only after his cell phone, travel documents and passport were confiscated did Maduro explain that he is a diplomat, the official said.

LOL. Only AFTER did he explain he was diplomat.

"We apologize for it, but at the same time the Venezuelan mission working out of New York knows better," the official said. "There are procedures and processes to request airport courtesies for dignitaries. You don't come to the airport and buy a ticket with cash a half hour before the flight."

I guess all those people in the U.S. who said that they should arrest Venezuelan leaders are seeing it happen now.

Was he arrested? No.

"We were detained illegally by the U.S. government," Maduro later told reporters. "They are responsible for this."

He called the U.S. government "racist" and "Nazi" and said the United States does not appreciate Latin American countries. He has filed a complaint with the United Nations, he said.

And do you still think the US planned this? That somehow, they planted a thought into this moron's head to not bother to follow proceedure and then be surprised when he has a problem?

[jdobbin]

Ya sure they are. Read the article, the guy was not recognized by the security staff and for good reason hence, he was treated just like you would be if you claimed to be the Queen of England when protesting the security at Winipeg International. Bet you couldn't pick him out of a line up either unless of course, you know him and what he looks like.

His passport itself said "diplomat" according to the Port Authority this morning. Once he was cleared through initial screening, he should have proceeded through without further checks. It was a miscommunication for sure and one that the State department cringes at because it can affect how U.S. diplomats are treated around the world. By the way, CNN has revised their news once again to say that it is reported he identified himself immediately as a diplomat but what taken away regardless.

I have seen how diplomats travel through security throughout my life. Even today, they are the fastest clearances. And when it comes to U.N. travel, many come at the last minute, pay cash on a one way ticket and might be dressed like they are a member of the Taliban. Once that U.N. passport is seen, they breeze past.

[Higgly]

OK.So it's alright for a rogue regime to seize private property that another company or person developed, made valuable and paid taxes on? Why should any company go the trouble of building property if it's subject to expropriation. Frankly, I believe the US made a big mistake in not deposing Qadafi, King Faisal and similar rules for the 1969-1975 wave of nationalisations of the petroleum industries. Ditto Cardenas (I think) in Mexico in 1938. There's a concept, foreign to some, of paying for assets you want. Higgly, do you really believe the Mexican, Libyan, Saudi, take your pick, people have benefited from their government's theft of resources, or do you think the money is in Swiss bank accounts, blown at the croupier's table in Monaco, or invested in reckless schemes?

You are talking about deposing a democratically elected government because they did something that upset a commercial corporation. There are legal ways to go at this sort of issue. For example, you sue the foreign government and if you win, you take compensation by confiscating any assets held or flowing through the international banking system - or at least those parts which will co-operate - the the US, Britain, what have you. Deposing the government on behalf of a commercial enterprise sort of sets a bad precedent, don't you think?

The British were the ones who put Faisal in, by the way and they did it because they knew he would make a good yes-man.

The resources belong to the country, not the corporation that developed them. This is a well-established principle of international law and it is why companies pay royalties to governments.

I personally don't believe that nationalizing an industry is the right, nor even a smart thing, for any country to do. But I do not accept that deposing a democratically elected government is justified on that count.

Hasn't capitalism created the greatest amount of prosperity for the greatest number of people?

Well how about democracy? In any case, I didn't say capitalism is bad. My point is that it is not a sufficiently good reason to depose a democratically elected foreign government. All the flag-waving about democracy and freedom as a cover-up is BS.

I don't see any reason to respond to statements that are not thought out, and are just posted for shock value.

OK so I won't respond to your non-response.

[mcqueen625]

CBC link

While Chavez (as Ahmadinejad earlier this week) may have certain image problems, there's a ring of truth in that the UN's current structure as a talking club controlled behind the curtains by few and mostly Western powers does not bode well for its credibility and legitimacy in the feature.

Has the UN been stillborn from the start? Has it's mandate been too ambitious?

Most human communities have some notion of authority. Power is either imposed from the top (authocracy) or delegated from the bottom (democracy). The problem is, in its current state the UN is lacking the first and does not have credibility to garner it through the second. Perhaps the whole idea was a bit premature?

I would suggest that instead of being controlled by Western powers it is controlled by countries that are anti-Western. This is definitely a disfunctional organization and one that is biased in favour of Extremist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and dictatorships and totalitarian regimes such as Venezuela, Cuba, China, North Korea, and Iran.

Let's not forget it was the U.N. who sponsored a bumper-sticker campaign aimed at Palestinian youth just as Israel was pulling out of the Gaza Strip. Those stickers bore the phrase: TODAY-GAZA-TOMORROW-THE-WEST-BANK-AND-JERUSALEM. These stickers and banners were paid for with U.N. funds, and that campaign did nothing but stoke the fires of violence.

For the U.N. to fulfill it's andate it needs to be unbiased, and it needs to be transparent, something it is not at this point. It is a failed organization and should be disbanded, and reformed with members from democratic countries ONLY. Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, China, North korea, are but some examples of countries that have no business being made member states, until such time as they have freely democratically elected governments, and they adhere to the Human Right's Charter. These particular countries have been made members although they have very poor records in the area of human rights. While we're at it we might want to look at Koffi himself and that of his son's involvement in the Oil for Food scandal regarding Iraq. While we're at it what about the Mercedes which was purchased by Koffi's son with U.N. funding. Neither Koffi, his son nor anyone else has been willing to even talk about that.

[mcqueen625]

Chavez and Ahmadinejad are good examples of why the UN will never be trusted with power that isn't tempered by the vetoes of "sane" countries.

You're right and that's one of the causes of the problem. UN pretty much ran its course as the pocket vehicle of the West to legitimize its projects in the world. And the West is highly unlikely to agree to any kind of reform that'll make it appear more democratic (and diminish its powers). So, a stalemate? Will it eventually end up as just a talking club (i.e. -SC) plus cultural, humanitarian and medical organizations?

I read a report just yesterday concerning foreign aid payments made through both the World Bank, and the United Nations. Canadian politicians attempting to find out exactly how that money is being spent by the countries receiving it have been stone-walled. They are not told who that money is going to exactly nor how it is being spent. On top of that, by allowing the World Bank and the U.N. to handle this money and dole it out Canada is not getting any credit on the ground for the $billions that are being paid out bythe taxpayers each and every year. Maybe it is time that we stop sending money to these two organizations and instead dole it out ourselves through our own monitored agencies, at least we will know where the money is going and how it is being spent.

The U.N. is an organization that sees itself as above the law, and it is time to abolish what it there and start over with an organization who's members are functionng democracies.

[Higgly]

I would suggest that instead of being controlled by Western powers it is controlled by countries that are anti-Western. This is definitely a disfunctional organization and one that is biased in favour of Extremist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and dictatorships and totalitarian regimes such as Venezuela, Cuba, China, North Korea, and Iran.

I watched the CNN interview of Ahmadinejad. He thinks the UN is controlled by the US.

Let's not forget it was the U.N. who sponsored a bumper-sticker campaign aimed at Palestinian youth just as Israel was pulling out of the Gaza Strip. Those stickers bore the phrase: TODAY-GAZA-TOMORROW-THE-WEST-BANK-AND-JERUSALEM. These stickers and banners were paid for with U.N. funds, and that campaign did nothing but stoke the fires of violence.

Which UN Agency was this? The way it works is they fund projects, they don't just hand out money for bumper stickers. If this story is true, my guess would be that somebody misappropriated funds from a legitimate project for the purpose. I doubt that a UN agency would put through a project with the purpose of printing up bumper stickers.

For the U.N. to fulfill it's andate it needs to be unbiased, and it needs to be transparent, something it is not at this point. It is a failed organization and should be disbanded, and reformed with members from democratic countries ONLY. Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, China, North korea, are but some examples of countries that have no business being made member states, until such time as they have freely democratically elected governments, and they adhere to the Human Right's Charter. These particular countries have been made members although they have very poor records in the area of human rights.

The UN is a forum for communication. If you kick out China and the other countries you mention, how are you going to talk to them?

While we're at it we might want to look at Koffi himself and that of his son's involvement in the Oil for Food scandal regarding Iraq. While we're at it what about the Mercedes which was purchased by Koffi's son with U.N. funding. Neither Koffi, his son nor anyone else has been willing to even talk about that.

Koffi is retiring; you won't have him to kick around any more.

[B. Max]

delete

[bradco]

CBC link

While Chavez (as Ahmadinejad earlier this week) may have certain image problems, there's a ring of truth in that the UN's current structure as a talking club controlled behind the curtains by few and mostly Western powers does not bode well for its credibility and legitimacy in the feature.

Has the UN been stillborn from the start? Has it's mandate been too ambitious?

Most human communities have some notion of authority. Power is either imposed from the top (authocracy) or delegated from the bottom (democracy). The problem is, in its current state the UN is lacking the first and does not have credibility to garner it through the second. Perhaps the whole idea was a bit premature?

I would suggest that instead of being controlled by Western powers it is controlled by countries that are anti-Western. This is definitely a disfunctional organization and one that is biased in favour of Extremist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and dictatorships and totalitarian regimes such as Venezuela, Cuba, China, North Korea, and Iran.

Let's not forget it was the U.N. who sponsored a bumper-sticker campaign aimed at Palestinian youth just as Israel was pulling out of the Gaza Strip. Those stickers bore the phrase: TODAY-GAZA-TOMORROW-THE-WEST-BANK-AND-JERUSALEM. These stickers and banners were paid for with U.N. funds, and that campaign did nothing but stoke the fires of violence.

For the U.N. to fulfill it's andate it needs to be unbiased, and it needs to be transparent, something it is not at this point. It is a failed organization and should be disbanded, and reformed with members from democratic countries ONLY. Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, China, North korea, are but some examples of countries that have no business being made member states, until such time as they have freely democratically elected governments, and they adhere to the Human Right's Charter. These particular countries have been made members although they have very poor records in the area of human rights. While we're at it we might want to look at Koffi himself and that of his son's involvement in the Oil for Food scandal regarding Iraq. While we're at it what about the Mercedes which was purchased by Koffi's son with U.N. funding. Neither Koffi, his son nor anyone else has been willing to even talk about that.

"dictatorships and totalitarian regimes such as Venezuela"

do some research before you post....Chavez (elected by universal suffrage) enjoys popular opinion that Harper and Bush can only dream of

posting completely incorrect facts as truths leads to confusion as people read that kind of junk and assume it to be true

call venezuela a weak democracy but a dictatorship/totalitarian regime it is not

[B. Max]

Koffi is retiring; you won't have him to kick around any more.

Not to worry, there is another one just like him waiting in the shadows. The UN long ago out lived its usefulness. Which is why it became a self serving entity bent on its own preservation.

http://www.freedomalliance.org/view_article.php?a_id=723

[jdobbin]

Not to worry, there is another one just like him waiting in the shadows. The UN long ago out lived its usefulness. Which is why it became a self serving entity bent on its own preservation.

http://www.freedomalliance.org/view_article.php?a_id=723

Harper could have pulled Canada out this week. Why didn't he?

[B. Max]

Not to worry, there is another one just like him waiting in the shadows. The UN long ago out lived its usefulness. Which is why it became a self serving entity bent on its own preservation.

http://www.freedomalliance.org/view_article.php?a_id=723

Harper could have pulled Canada out this week. Why didn't he?

I don't know, but I wish he would. We have sent embarrassment after embarrassment to the UN and signed onto just about every socialist nincompoop idea they ever came up with.

I don't agree that much with McCain but this time is one time that I do. If you are not getting out of the UN at least send the right guy.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/...4358.shtml?s=ic