Uno Hates The Jews

[Craig Read]

The Useless Nattering Group - eating up $10 billion per year of rich northern taxpayer money is incapable of living up to its own rhetoric - whether that rhetoric deals with Iraq and the protection of Iraqi civilians pre Gulf War II - or with Human Rights abuses.

The UN is anti-Semitic.

On Nov. 26 a resolution condemning terrorist attacks on Israeli children failed to make it through the General Assembly while one on Palestinian children was adopted with only four states opposed. Israel was forced to withdraw its resolution because Egyptian amendments deleting "Israeli" before every mention of the word "children" were guaranteed an automatic U.N. majority.

Last week a draft resolution on anti-Semitism -- which would have been a first in the U.N.'s 58-year history -- was withdrawn in the face of Arab and Muslim opposition.

Daily incidents of anti-Semitic violence around the globe are reported in the media. Yet while leaders of the Free World condemn synagogue bombings in Turkey, firebombings of Jewish schools in France, and the hate speech of Malaysia's president who now heads the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the U.N. moves in the opposite direction, encouraging the proliferation of anti-Israeli/Jew hatred.

But of course the Useless group defends the highly civilised and cultured Muslim religion.

A special rapporteur mandated by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights reports regularly to the U.N. on "discrimination against Muslims and Arab peoples in various parts of the world" including any "physical assaults and attacks against their places of worship, cultural centers, businesses and properties." An entire 2003 Commission resolution "combating defamation of religions," mentions only prejudice against Muslims, Arabs and Islam.

Poor Arabs. Who would thinkt that after blowing up a few pizza parlours, that somebody might take vigilante action against the homicide bombers ?

The UNO has enshrined anti-Semiticism in its 'Durban Declaration' which excluded virtually all references to anti-Semitism and the Holocaust when it came to the specifics of taking action. The UNO appeased the EU and Arab states by permitting minimal reference to anti-Semitism in exchange for including a condemnation of alleged Israeli racism.

Last week the U.N. General Assembly permitted reference to anti-Semitism in a resolution on follow-up to the Durban Conference, knowing that the United States and Israel would be forced to vote against.

Again, why is Canada supporting such a racist and entirely immoral organisation ?

[Elder]

I agree with you that the U.N. is taking an extremely biased stand here. In all honesty I believe it to be a useless corrupt organization. However, before leaving it, let's look at what might happen. Leaving it would definitely cut it's power, and set us apart from the mistakes that it's making. However, it still would have some power, and if everyone with a conscience leaves it, it will only get worse. One can do far more to help fix an organization from the inside than the out. The real question is, is it at all possible to fix it?

[Mr Farrius]

The UN is anti-Semitic.

Maybe it's not the UN. Maybe it's a bunch of nations who happen to be members that are anti-Semitic and who keep voting in ways that may be construed as anti-Semitic. Without the UN, the world would be full of chaos because it was made to keep the peace and when it's gone, the peace is as well.

[righturnonred]

Maybe it's not the UN. Maybe it's a bunch of nations who happen to be members that are anti-Semitic and who keep voting in ways that may be construed as anti-Semitic

An organization is representative of the members that make it up. The Aryan Nation consists of members who hold blatently racist and militant views, therefore this is what the organization as a whole represents.

With the exception of a very limited number of participants, the UN is no different.

As I've said before, all you need do is watch an open session of the UN general assembly and come to your own conclusion.

Without the UN, the world would be full of chaos because it was made to keep the peace and when it's gone, the peace is as well.

Without the backing of the United States, the UN as a peace keeping mechanism is worthless. For fifty years the US, and her allies, have been the sole enforcers of world order and have kept the world from the brink of destruction on numerous occasions.

If the UN were to cease to exist tomarrow the world would not fall into chaos, on the contrary, it may even be made safer as result.

Peace is not simply the absence of war, as is defined by the feel gooders at the UN. The former Soviet subjects had no peace. People under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein had no peace. Ordinary populations that are starved to death by the likes of tyrants such as Mohamed Farid Adid have no peace. The famine stricken people of N. Korea have no peace.

Millions upon millions of innocent people have died not because of war, but rather due to the "peace" that was permitted to endure for so long.

Ronald Reagan realized that true peace is acheived only through strength, and not through complacency as advocated by Jimmy Carter.

[Morgan]

I agree with you, righturnonred, when you said:

Without the backing of the United States, the UN as a peace keeping mechanism is worthless. For fifty years the US, and her allies, have been the sole enforcers of world order and have kept the world from the brink of destruction on numerous occasions.

Here's a recent article about the recent abyssmal UN peacekeeping efforts written by a retired U.S. Army major, who has performed medical relief services in Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia. Without the USA and a selected number of US allies, the UN is unable to do the basics of what it supposed to do.

U.N. troop fntasies, Dec.07/03, Washington Times

Some naively assert U.N. involvement would alleviate much of the U.S. burden in rebuilding Iraq. However, they fail to recognize the breach of trust among "allies" and the U.N.'s history of failure in peacekeeping missions, which interfere with our success.

Betrayals are reflected in the recent reports regarding the Russian and French governments and their commercial groups, which provided the former Iraqi regime with information and military intelligence against American troops. These actions occurred throughout Desert Storm in Gulf War I and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Gulf War II. As the United States conducts the war on terror, we cannot leave our troops vulnerable to treachery from apparently greedy allies that might be asked to help us now.

In Somalia, U.N. elements frustrated the peacekeeping process and led to its eventual failure. Few elements were proactive or helpful. For instance, many of the 22 countries participating mostly stayed in their compounds, leaving the daunting peacekeeping responsibilities to others. Further aggravating the problem, the Indian soldiers, being Hindu, were unable to command respect from Muslim Somalis, or even their Muslim Pakistani cohorts. In addition, the Pakistani contingent in Somalia looked at the Somalis with contempt and committed various human rights violations, including beating the Somalis with sticks. These actions led to Mohammed Farrah Aideed's group ambushing and killing 24 Pakistani soldiers.

As a result, U.N. authorized UNSCOM to take all necessary measures against those responsible for the armed attacks. This later contributed to the deaths of American soldiers in the tragic incident recalled in the film "Blackhawk Down."

U.N. modis operandi allows various countries to deploy undesirable and diseased soldiers as peacekeepers. Some of the 22 nations involved in Somalia came in "light" and left "heavy," stealing anything of value from the Somalis and other coalition members.

Additionally, Zimbabwe sent a large contingent of soldiers who were HIV-positive, placing a burden on American and U.N. medical teams, and jeopardized the health Somali women through fraternization.

The efforts made in Haiti were much of the same. The Bangladeshis serving there for the U.N. held the Haitians in low regard and often physically abused them, as witnessed by one of the authors of this article. While some U.N. contingents perform remarkably, such as the Swedish medical teams in Somalia and the Canadian Police in Haiti, the contributions of others are counterproductive.

The majority of U.N. forces lack training and equipment, have little or no knowledge of conducting civic action and civil affairs or performing security operations, particularly within urban environments. These ineptitudes render some multinational forces unable to coordinate movements and carry out missions with their more sophisticated counterparts. The result is mission failure and increased combat casualties.

The cost of these U.N. debacles has not only been paid for with the lives of American soldiers, but also with American taxpayers' dollars. As reported by the General Accounting Office, the U.S. currently pays an estimated 25 percent of the costs associated with U.N. operations. Between 1992 and 1995, the U.S. contributed approximately $1.3 billion for U.N. missions in Haiti, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Somalia. At the same time, the United States spent $5.3 billion providing additional support to U.N.-sanctioned missions, for which it was never reimbursed. In Haiti for example, the U.S. contributed an additional $953 million to provide training and equipment to coalition members to help them establish order — a goal never really attained

The reason I believe that political leaders in Canada may have taken an anti-Israel/anti-semitic posture is simple -warm bodies-VOTES. The Muslim population is now larger than that of the Jewish population in Canada and because the birth rate of Muslim families is much greater the discrepancy in numbers will continue to grow in the future. As well, Muslim nations seem to be a major source of new immigrants for Canada.

However, maybe more Canadians are cluing in to anti-semitic attitudes in Canada. To whit CBC has hired an expensive Madison Avenue P.R. firm to help it with image problems due to so many complaints about its anti-Israel news casts. Maybe the LPOC should hire the same PR firm as CBC.

As a Canadian I felt badly for the latest anti-Israel posturing of Ottawa. A subsequent semi-apology to Israel came across like an after thought.

Ottawa to rebuke Israel's Ambassador, Dec.07/03

Graham softens stance on comments by Israel's ambassador Dec.08/03

[Mr Farrius]

Without the backing of the United States, the UN as a peace keeping mechanism is worthless. For fifty years the US, and her allies, have been the sole enforcers of world order and have kept the world from the brink of destruction on numerous occasions.

I agree that without the United States, the UN would have no real enforcer, and an alliance of powerless nations. However, it was the United States that proposed the initiation of an international peace-keeping organization and must therefore take responsibility in remaining a member. It cannot, like you said, keep "the world from the brink of destruction on numerous occasions" and pull out of an international peace-keeping organization. One thing I don't understand is if the UN's existence is pointless, why did Bush keep calling for its help in the war? Is that not indicative of U.S. need for UN cooperation?

The former Soviet subjects had no peace. People under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein had no peace. Ordinary populations that are starved to death by the likes of tyrants such as Mohamed Farid Adid have no peace. The famine stricken people of N. Korea have no peace.

Millions upon millions of innocent people have died not because of war, but rather due to the "peace" that was permitted to endure for so long.

So, if the United States left the United Nations, would it be willing to deal with these problems by itself?

[Craig Read]

The US is the largest funder of the UN and the largest indirect funder of NGO- UNO activities outside of the official UN budget. The US pays for most of the peace keeping that goes on by transferring dollars to say Bangladesh who receive US$ in return to send their troops on UN missions. Both sides win - the Bangladeshis and others get international recognition, respect and $, and the US can free up its military to do other things.

But that does not mean the UN system is effective. There are too many examples of UN failure in keeping civil peace to be sanguine about its role.

Glaringly the UN does not extend its 'Human Rights' code to Jews or Israelis. This is preposterous - the UN was build on the graves of the Holocaust, one of the signal events of World War II. 60 years later the UN has repudiated its reason for existence.

It is now an outdated artefact of bygone ideals.

The US DOES deal outside of the UNO, which is why its actions in Iraq and Israel [Canada to its eternal shame has NEVER supported Israel], have sent the dithering legal and media elite into progressive spasms of apoplexy. National sovereignty was never meant to be compromised by the UNO - neither Churchill nor Roosevelt had any intention of submitting their nations to the will of an unelected council.

The UNO is only effective if the nations that comprise it share common values and aspirations.

They don't. The UNO is largely anti-modern, anti-capitalist, anti-technology, anti-innovation and anti-Western. Other than that it is a great group.

The UNO does not defend Jews that are murdered by homocidal terrorists. It milks Iraq for $21 billion in revenue during the 1990s and obstructs the US in defending the UN's own resolutions. It engages in corruption and fraud at the highest levels of its organisation that would make even the mandarins on Toronto's City Council blush. It spends money on 55.000 employees and hundreds of programs that are not audited, and provide in most cases little value added for either donor or recipient and are more often than not totally mismanged. For example World Bank projects [about 2/3] fail to meet 'internal' standards for success. This is akin to an employee telling her employer that she fails in doing her job properly - a highly peculiar admission. This says nothing of the bloated bureaucracy, paper shuffling and diplomatic costs embedded in a sprawling massive organisation. Depending on your view the UN is either too small to do its job [World Gov't] or too big [selected roles and responsibilities and focus].

The UN might have some usefulness but not in its curr ent construction. Unless it focuses on 2 or 3 main issues it will become entirely useless. Currently it is just another tax on northern taxpayers, and through such dumb ideas like Kyoto, it is an attempt to retard progress and punish rich countries.

No thanks.

[righturnonred]

One thing I don't understand is if the UN's existence is pointless, why did Bush keep calling for its help in the war? Is that not indicative of U.S. need for UN cooperation?

While the US does prefer to have the cooperation of the UN, it does not need it. This desire is for purely political reasons because much of the world community attributes legitmacy to that organization. It in no way reflects an American requirement for logistical assitance.

However, because the US is footing the cost to execute a campaign that clearly benefits the entire world, it would be nice if they could contribute something to this gigantic effort. Japan for instance, while understandably reluctant to commit troops to Iraq, has none the less contributed nearly $10 billion toward reconstruction efforts. That's 50% of what the US has ear marked!

Some of our allies who wish to contribute fighting forces are, unfortunately, reluctant to do so because they feel they are required to receive UN rubber stamp approval for any military operation. The US however does not subscribe to the idea of, as Craig said, submitting their nation to the will of an unelected council.

Although NATO is less relevant now than it was during the cold war, essentially that alliance is in existence because UN pacifism is ultimately incapable of protecting the western civilized cultures from the Evil Empires and two bit dictators that exist or have existed around the world.

Realistically, US foreign policy is constructed and implimented with the following order of priorities in mind:

1) US interests (often common among US allies and non-aligned)

2) Interests of US allies

3) Interests of the non aligned (law abiding world community)

4) Interests of US enemies and detractors

Many of the nations comprising the UN unfortunately fall somewhere between 3 and 4.

would it [uS] be willing to deal with these problems by itself?

It has in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

Ironically, US military involvment in Somalia was facilitated in part by the brutal killing of defenseless UN relief workers by Adid's militiamen.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear rightturnonred,

Japan for instance, while understandably reluctant to commit troops to Iraq, has none the less contributed nearly $10 billion toward reconstruction efforts. That's 50% of what the US has ear marked!

Halliburton, Dick Cheney's outfit, is earmarked to receive 7 billion of that.

UN pacifism is ultimately incapable of protecting the western civilized cultures from the Evil Empires and two bit dictators that exist or have existed around the world.

The UN has been incapable of halting dictatorships that the US supports or has supported? Not surprising, since the US uses the most vetoes in the UN.

Ironically, US military involvment in Somalia was facilitated in part by the brutal killing of defenseless UN relief workers by Adid's militiamen.

What of the 'defenseless UN workers killed by Israel in 'Palestine'?.

I suspect I shall be called an anti-semite for that one, but so be it. Besides, Semites include Arabs and Jews, so I should be equally called anti-Arab.

[righturnonred]

Halliburton, Dick Cheney's outfit, is earmarked to receive 7 billion of that

omg, SO WHAT! and it's not Dick Cheney's outfit as he no longer has any interest in the company. get serious.

The UN has been incapable of halting dictatorships that the US supports or has supported? Not surprising, since the US uses the most vetoes in the UN.

You won't convince anyone here that the US is the bad guy so give it a rest. I'm guessing most of those vetos are related to Isreal.

What of the 'defenseless UN workers killed by Israel in 'Palestine'?.

That is just so utterly stupid it's unbelievable.

Identification of "the good guys" and "the bad guys" is so painfully obvious yet you seem to be flipped entirely upside down on the issue.

It becomes more apparent to me every day that liberalism is not a political philosophy, it's a mental disorder

[Derek]

While I wouldn't mind if the US left the UN completely, I would also support a massive reform program. At this state it is utterly biased and unproductive. The US doesn't need the UN.

Its just that simple. They slow down the progress of the nation.

[Elder]

The U.N. Definitely has it's many faillings. The question is, can it be fixed, or is it a lost cause. If it can be fixed, than I think we should stay and fix it. It was a good idea way back when it was first started, although it has since decayed. If it can be reformed, then it is worth reforming. If it's too far gone, let it die. Let it fall apart so we can get something new in it's place.

[KrustyKidd]

Thed US should leave the UN to do whatever it does best and start a real league of nations. One who's membership is based on their values. Democracy, fair play, human rights and walking the walk. One who actually stands up to enact what it rules. The reward would be economic favoritism, common military goals and shared technology. Kinda like what is happening with Britain and the US now.

Lessor nations that can't make first string can become water boys for the UN while the menfolk get stuff done.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear righturnonred,

omg, SO WHAT! and it's not Dick Cheney's outfit as he no longer has any interest in the company. get serious.

Gee whiz, what was I thinking. I forgot that politicians renounce all their friends and cronies once elected to office, and become 'paragons of virtue'. Just as the Bush Family has denounced all ties to OIL.

QUOTE 

What of the 'defenseless UN workers killed by Israel in 'Palestine'?. 

That is just so utterly stupid it's unbelievable.

Did you forget the shooting in a refugee camp by the IDF of a UN worker? Did you also forget that the IDF denied ambulance access to the shooting victims (of the UN)? If you are ignorant of these facts, I shall not press for an apology.

Identification of "the good guys" and "the bad guys" is so painfully obvious yet you seem to be flipped entirely upside down on the issue.

It is painful for me that I have not seen a 'good guy' for a long time. Most of them don't go into politics.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Elder,

I echo your sentiment that the UN needs an overhaul immediately. The world and it's nations need a 'world police force' that all nations are accountable to. However, if it is one existing nation, impartiality and fairness of justice will never be attained.

If the UN, as it is, is tainted to the point if 'beyond salvage' then a new entity must take it's place.

I do not believe that the 'spirit' of the UN is wrong, but rather it's capabilities are lacking.

How can that 'world police force' wield the neccesary power' to do the job and still remain impartial?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Derek,

The US doesn't need the UN.

Its just that simple. They slow down the progress of the nation.

While this may be factually true, it is also self-destructive. Human rights laws also slow down the progress of the US. Minimum wage laws, safety standards, and unions also slow down the US. ( I'll go on record as saying unions are a bad thing).

[Debo]

Dear Derek,

The US doesn't need the UN.

Its just that simple. They slow down the progress of the nation.

While this may be factually true, it is also self-destructive. Human rights laws also slow down the progress of the US. Minimum wage laws, safety standards, and unions also slow down the US. ( I'll go on record as saying unions are a bad thing).

While this may be factually true, it is also self-destructive. Human rights laws also slow down the progress of the US. Minimum wage laws, safety standards, and unions also slow down the US.

I spend alot of time on this sight, most times I do not log in, just read posts.

I feel compelled here to say in all your posts I have read this is the only thing you posted something even close to be right.

And the funny thing is the problems you stated are the results of the unethical, immoral and moronic Libs we have down here.

Kind of like you up there.

NOW.

The less than desirable result of the US pulling completely out of the UN is the inevitable conniving of the EU.

They would definitly sieze the opportunity to take control and expand.

I fully believe this to be part of thier agenda.

If they do this the poorer countries will have no chance. The reason for thier establishment of the EU is totally financial. As the poorer countries are unable to meet the standards they have set:

http://europa.eu.int/pol/enlarg/overview_en.htm

They will inevitably be exposed to some serious political tom foolery.

Also,

KrustyKidd Posted on Dec 12 2003, 07:36 PM

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

Thed US should leave the UN to do whatever it does best and start a real league of nations

Problem here is everytime the US tries something of this magnitude the other countries start trying to get what they can from us and it goes to crap.

BUT, I am totally in favor of the US pulling out of that anti-semetic, racist, money grubbish, single sighted UN.

[Michael Hardner]

A lot of breezy and overconfident statements being made here.

I'm not convinced that any of you have the full picture, even if some of your complaints are valid.

[righturnonred]

here, here!

[Debo]

A lot of breezy and overconfident statements being made here.

I'm not convinced that any of you have the full picture, even if some of your complaints are valid.

As in any situation you must develope your view from the picture you do have.

Agree?

[Michael Hardner]

As in any situation you must develope your view from the picture you do have.

Agree?

Sure. Why not ?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Debo,

I feel compelled here to say in all your posts I have read this is the only thing you posted something even close to be right.

All of my posts thus far have been actually left, but also correct.

As in any situation you must develope your view from the picture you do have.

Agree?

I must disagree.

As Mr. Hardner implied, the more complete the picture, the better the understanding. One must NOT 'develop' a view from but one picture. There are two cameras to consider. There is you and also 'the one who is not you'.

[Elder]

Agreed. If the point of view you have at the moment is insufficient, than one must strive to see it from another. If you don't have enough information, you don't just go off the info you have, that's asking for disaster. You get more.

In this issue, a lot of people have been deciding whether or not the U.S. actually needs the U.N. I personally doubt that we do. However, many other countries may need to the U.S. to stick with the U.N. and use the power that it has there to try to stop some of these problems it has. The statement was made that the U.N. is anti-Jewish. I'm not going to argue with it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that was true. However, the U.S. could probably do something about that. If the U.S. were to leave, there's no chance that reform in the U.N. could ever happen. That's from different perspective that sees what the U.S. can do for the U.N., not what good the U.N. is doing the U.S.

[Craig Read]

The US and others have tried for years to reform the UNO of its anti-Jewish sentiment. It has failed. When the UNO is effectively run by a massive bureaucracy, whose ideology stems from France, Statism and whose political pressure points are dictated by 3rd world largely anti-semitic nations, then reform is impossible.

The US only needs the UNO to help defray some costs on international assignments. In fact i would say that the UN is not only anti-jewish but anti - american.

Witness King Kofi's triumphal return from Bagdhad in 1998 - remember ? Hussein was a man he could do business with - he was far more interested in keeping Iraq happy than in enforcing sanctions. Especially as long as the UNO could keep milking Iraq for money [$21 billion] and blame dead children on US inspired sanctions - an EU invention nonetheless. Iraq was King Kofi's prized cash cow. He could not give that up now could he ? Not for the good of the world government and their pontificating rhetoric now could he ?

When you met with Saddam, you came back and said you think he is a man you can do business with. Do you regret saying that?

ANNAN: No. I think what I was getting across objectively was that I had just gone to Baghdad and spoken to him and got him to agree to open the palaces. Don't forget that we were going to go to war, because he had refused to open the palaces for inspection. And I got him to open those palaces, so that we could go in and inspect. The agreement didn't stand the test of time for many months or years, but I think the attempt to try to resolve issues peacefully and to avoid war is something that as secretary of this organization I must always do.

Mumbo jumbo. When King Kofi steps down he should join the Paul Chretien spin machine.

[Debo]

Dear Debo,

I feel compelled here to say in all your posts I have read this is the only thing you posted something even close to be right.

All of my posts thus far have been actually left, but also correct.

As in any situation you must develope your view from the picture you do have.

Agree?

I must disagree.

As Mr. Hardner implied, the more complete the picture, the better the understanding. One must NOT 'develop' a view from but one picture. There are two cameras to consider. There is you and also 'the one who is not you'.

All of my posts thus far have been actually left, but also correct.

Not right ideologicaly, silly girl.

Right as in correct.

I must disagree.

As Mr. Hardner implied, the more complete the picture, the better the understanding. One must NOT 'develop' a view from but one picture. There are two cameras to consider. There is you and also 'the one who is not you'.

You must have stepped in a pile of dumb shit.

Of course what you are saying is correct but in no way applies to my post as my post was a reply to a post that was as vague as my reply.

Get it?

You can only form a view from the picture you have.

When someone says you should not form a view untill one has the whole picture.

How in the hell are you supposed to know when you have the whole picture?

The left doesn't want us to form a view untill we have all of the picture they intend for us to accept.

God, are you being thick on purpose or does this over shoot your vision?