BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.

Subject: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 03:12 PM

Many people complain that the U.N. is ineffective and redundant. Most of these complaints come from U.S. citizens. I wonder how many people realize that it is the U.S. who has tied the hands of the U.N.? How can the U.N. stop anything if the U.S. doesn't support the other members? Its a sad day when the U.S. has more power than all the other member nations combined.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/13/ap/world/mainD8IRCE2G5.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 05:51 PM

The U.S. also seems to have this little recurring problem of not paying its dues to the U.N... they're still about half a billion dollars in arrears, aren't they?

The good old deadbeat red white and blue.

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: DougR
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 06:02 PM

Dues? For what? For all the good things it does? Er, ah, what's that?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: Grab
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 07:01 PM

Dues? For what? For all the good things it does? Er, ah, what's that?

Doug, if you're unaware of what the UN does, check this link.

A few numbers quoted from the UN's site. Currently there are 23 peacekeeping missions active. At the start of 2004, 17.1 million refugees of various wars and conflicts were receiving humanitarian aid from the UN. In 2003, 22 emergency relief efforts required $3.4 billion coordinated aid from multiple agencies, organised by the UN. And in case you think it's a cushy job in the UN, 220 civilian UN staff members have been killed during humanitarian work. In 2004, those civilians had 120 cases of assault, including 10 sexual assaults.

Yes Doug, it's unlikely to do anything for you personally. You're lucky enough to live in one of the richest countries in the world.   The rule of law exists in the US (at least as much as it's ever likely to do in a human society). There are hospitals that will treat you for almost any illness, and medical supplies are of the highest quality. There are any number of banks prepared to lend you money if you want to start a business, build a house or simply need extra cash at some point. You have friends and family you can call on for emergency financial (and emotional/spiritual) support in situations like a hurricane destroying your business, home and every possession you own, and you're almost certainly insured so you'll get your money back anyway. The US has enough money to fund its own relief efforts in case of massive disasters. You're also in a country which has not suffered any attack or civilian deaths on its mainland from a foreign army since 1812 (with one exception: 6 dead from Japanese balloon bombs in 1945), and which until 9/11/2001 was basically unaware that attacks on civilians could happen on its soil.

In most other countries of the world, you'll find that one, many or all of these don't apply. Either people have personally been in need of assistance from the UN (or a similar organisation), or their family has been within living memory. If you believe in God, I'd suggest thanking him for lucking into a situation where you don't need that help.

Even then, let's try and remember another major aspect of the UN - trying to prevent war between nations. You're old enough to remember the Cuba Missile Crisis, right? Nuff said, I hope.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 08:55 PM

Actually, Grab, enough has not been said.

I don't think the U.S. should have a vote until they pay their dues.

Why should they have the power to veto anything if they can't pay their membership dues?

They certainly should not have the power to halt what the other member nations want to do.

In the real world thats called 'stone-walling'.

I didn't like the Bush administration before but now I see them as the enemy of the world. They do not want peace. They are war-mongers of the first degree.

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: robomatic
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 09:12 PM

This wouldn't happen to be about, oh, I don't know, Israel?

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 10:08 PM

Added to which, Dougie boy, Bush owes his 2004 election to the UN.   (That should mean something to you). Do I need to explain to you yet again why this is so?

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 11:01 AM

None of the five countries who have should have veto power. At least it is used much less often now than it was in previous decades.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 11:13 AM

Dutch Government resigns as a result of U.N. "peace-keeping".

U.N. fails to condemn slavery in Sudan.

The U.N. is even a joke in Sierra Leone.

Where was the U.N. during the massacre in Rwanda in 1994?

Where were they when Mugabe expunged all white farmers from Zimbabwe, and caused a famine that threatens to kill 8 million? Now they are talking with Mugabe about how to avert the disaster. What a joke!

They impede or war in Iraq, claiming diplomacy and inspections are the only answer. At the same time, they refuse to discuss the North Korea's brazen moves.

U.N. ignores more human rights abuses. This time in Iran.

U.N. takes over in East Timor, and then drops the ball leading to further violence and anarchy.

Remember those Buddist statues in Afghanistan that the Taliban destroyed? Well, you guessed it. The U.N. failed to save them.

The U.N. fails to protect those displaced by a civil war in Angola.

The U.N. failed in Kashmir, too.

The U.N. failed in Somalia.

The U.N. failed in Bosnia.

The U.N. failed in Israel.

The U.N. failed in Columbia.

The U. N. failed in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: number 6
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 11:40 AM

No mention of the genocide in Riwanda. This has to be the most blantant, horrific, tragic, inhumane failure of the U.N. Changed my opinion of that useless, expensive organizaton.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: number 6
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 11:41 AM

Sorry Dave ... seen you had mentioned Riwanda.

six

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 10:48 PM

Failures of the UN are failures of members who have the money and military power to support UN objectives and intentions.

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 11:27 PM

exactly!

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 12:06 AM

Absolutely right. The UN has only the powers the member states are willing to give it. So if they want better results, they--particularly the richer states--need to change their attitudes towards it.

Otherwise its failures become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Which of course in the "minds" of the Right, gives them justification to give it even less support.

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 06:02 AM

Why give money to a proven corrupted system?

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: kendall
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 07:58 AM

And the alternative?

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 08:15 AM

NATO, and clean up the UN

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 08:54 AM

Why give money to a proven corrupted system?

Possibly because the U.S agreed to do so and its their legal as well as moral responsibility to meet their contractual obligations?

Oh, 'scuse me- there I go talking about morality & the rule of law- neither of which hold any meaning for the BuShite Neo-Cons.

(err... giving money to a proven corrupted system... like the RNC, you mean?)

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 09:41 AM

Well if you mean giving Koffi Anans son more money why not? after all whats another few billion$

Oil-for-Food Panel Rebukes Annan, Cites Corruption
Secretary General Faulted For Management of Program

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 8, 2005; Page A01

UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 7 -- A U.N.-appointed panel investigating corruption in prewar Iraq's oil-for-food program delivered a scathing rebuke of Secretary General Kofi Annan's management of the largest U.N. humanitarian aid operation and concluded that Kojo Annan took advantage of his father's position to profit from the system.

Former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Paul A. Volcker, the head of the Independent Inquiry Committee, said blame for the program's failure was shared by the Security Council, other members of the United Nations and Annan's senior advisers. In a dramatic appearance before the Security Council, Volcker warned Annan and the 15-nation council to change the way they do business or face a worldwide loss of public support.



Secretary General Kofi Annan, at the United Nations, said that he accepts the "criticism" of the panel but does not intend to resign. (By John Marshall Mantel -- Associated Press)

"Our assignment has been to look for mis- or mal-administration in the oil-for-food program, and for evidence of corruption within the U.N. organization and by contractors. Unhappily, we found both," Volcker told the council.

Senior U.N. officials said they hope that Volcker's fourth and most complete report will bring an end to a painful 18-month probe of the $64 billion program, which investigators concluded was so poorly managed that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein raked in $1.7 billion in kickbacks from participating companies and $11 billion in oil-smuggling profits. Among the most volatile allegations probed by Volcker were suspicions that Kofi Annan had steered lucrative Iraqi oil contracts to a Swiss company, Cotecna, that had put his son on its payroll.

Wednesday's report said the panel found no evidence that Kofi Annan had interceded on behalf of Cotecna and no conclusive proof that he knew of his son's activities. But it provided fresh details suggesting that Kojo Annan, 31, may have obtained privileged information about U.N. business deals from his father's personal assistant and from contacts in the U.N. procurement office. It also asserted that Kojo Annan abused his father's diplomatic status to secure more than $20,000 in breaks on taxes and customs fees for a Mercedes-Benz he bought in Geneva in 1998.

"We have found no corruption by the secretary general," said Volcker, but "his behavior has not been exonerated by any stretch of the imagination."

Annan told reporters after the report's release that he accepted its "criticism," but he dismissed calls for his resignation by U.N. critics, saying: "I don't anticipate anyone to resign. We are carrying on with our work."

He also underscored Volcker's conclusion that blame should be shared by the broader U.N. membership. In a statement released by his lawyer, Kojo Annan denied that he played any role in promoting Cotecna's case for oil-for-food business and said he had never discussed the company's plans with his contacts in the U.N. procurement office. "As to using my father's name to get a discount on a car, I was young and I just didn't think it through," he said.

U.S. Ambassador John R. Bolton seized on the report's findings to advance his case for greater independent oversight of U.N. spending, citing the need "to reform the U.N. in a manner that will prevent another oil-for-food scandal. The credibility of the U.N. depends on it."

Bolton accused dozens of developing countries "who are in a state of denial" of resisting attempts to agree on such changes before world leaders arrive in New York next week for a summit on poverty and U.N. reform.

Congressional leaders said the report raises questions about Annan's capacity to lead the organization.

"The flagship of international diplomacy ran aground while Kofi Annan was at the helm," said Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), who is heading an investigation into U.N. corruption. "The critical question now is whether the secretary general can provide the management direction needed to restore U.N. credibility and effectiveness."

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 12:31 PM

Lets Review:

"We have found no corruption by the secretary general," said Volcker

You want to talk REAL corruption?

How about Abramoff's money for influence program?
Or Tom DeLay's?
Or Bolton's?
Or Cheney's?
Or Iran-Contra?
Etc?

Anaan's transgressions-are small potatoes compared to those of various Republicans- all of whom are still in office.

How about we get THEM to resign first?

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 12:40 PM

they could only jail Al Capone on tax evasion This is about the UN not Bush

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: DougR
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 04:37 PM

The UN is about as useful as a warm bucket of spit.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 04:55 PM

If the U.N. is ineffective, or if it is corrupt, or all the other epithets that people like to throw at it, it's because ever since it was organized, a couple or more of the five countries that have veto power have made a mockery of an organization that could have ended war for all time, had it not been for their stupid, selfish posturing and penchant for bullying.

And as far as "it's unlikely to do anything for you personally" is concerned, as ineffecual as the U.N. has often been, the fact that many disagreements between countries were brought before the U.N. for duscussion instead of usual historical practice of going directly to open hostilities that it's quite likely that what the U.N. has done for you personally is that on a number of occasions it probably kept your sorry ass from being vaporized in a nuclear war.

It's easy for people to attack the U.N. for its many failures, but many of its successes go unheralded because, as a result of those successes, nothing much happened. Which is one of the purposes for which the U.N. was organized in the first place.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 06:02 PM

Re: Dag Hamarskjold and the U.N. from
http://nobelprize.virtual.museum/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1961/hammarskjold-bio.html

"In the six years after his first major victory of 1954-1955, when he personally negotiated the release of American soldiers captured by the Chinese in the Korean War, he was involved in struggles on three of the world's continents. He approached them through what he liked to call "preventive diplomacy" and while doing so sought to establish more independence and effectiveness in the post of Secretary-General itself.

In the Middle East his efforts to ease the situation in Palestine and to resolve its problems continued throughout his stay in office. During the Suez Canal crisis of 1956, he exercised his own personal diplomacy with the nations involved; worked with many others in the UN to get the UN to nullify the use of force by Israel, France, and Great Britain following Nasser's commandeering of the Canal; and under the UN's mandate, commissioned the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) - the first ever mobilized by an international organization. In 1958 he suggested to the Assembly a solution to the crises in Lebanon and Jordan and subsequently directed the establishment of the UN Observation Group in Lebanon and the UN Office in Jordan, bringing about the withdrawal of the American and British troops which had been sent there. In 1959 he sent a personal representative to Southeast Asia when Cambodia and Thailand broke off diplomatic relations, and another to Laos when problems arose there.

Out of these crises came procedures and tactics new to the UN - the use of the UNEF, employment of a UN "presence" in world trouble spots and a steadily growing tendency to make the Secretary-General the executive for operations for peace."

That is harldy nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: robomatic
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 06:15 PM

I used to live in a place called Hammarskjold House and I think Dag Hammarskjold was bar none the best leader the UN has had. Unfortunately he didn't have much by way of competition. I think eventually we will need some stronger effort toward world government, and the UN bad as it may seem, is a pretty accurate representative for the world as it is. Bad.

Reminds me of the saying: "Sure, the game is rigged, but it's the only game in town."

We need some world confabs to get the show on the road. Build us a NEW U N.

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 06:32 PM

If various countries whom I shall not bother to name didn't just blow off the U.N., but gave it the respect and support that it deserves, used their mighty military to provide peace-keeping forces like they did on occasion in the past, made use of the U.N.'s diplomatic facilities instead of just hauling off and invading other countries on their own hook, paid their dues, and were more involved in matters of genuine human rights rather than securing profits for American oil companies, problems like Ruwanda and Darfur could very well be solved by now.

But that means that occasionally we'd have to make compromises and might not always get our own way.

Well!   We can't allow that, now can we. . . ?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 08:08 PM

the UN was founded by people who went through a horrendous war, (WWII)
and wanted to avoid another major world war. And many of the founders were farsighted Americans who knew that the next world war will be even more destructive.

ITs not perfect, but by allowing an international forum, and establishing legal rules for war, the UN has done what it was intended to do(preventing WW3). Right now the major threat to the UN is not corruption or ineffectiveness, it is only as effective as its members are willing to be, but rather the US and its neocon leadership which has stated that it wants to 'maintain military supremacy for all time.' THat leadership would rather scrap the UN and go back to the alliances and ententes (or the law of the jungle) of the 19th century - and we know that worked really well.

Its utter nonsense of course because ultimately it comes down to economics and within 30years the US economy will be eclipsed by CHinas
(as Goldman Sachs predicts) and the US dollar (as a world currency) will go the way of the pound sterling (the previous world currency)

You can also have the largest military in the world but lets face it, its not that useful in a country with a low tolerance of US casualties, and how effective is it when the largest military in the world cant maintain order in a tiny country the size of Iraq after 3 1/2 years.
Not to mention the cost - of the war to the US economy estimated to be between 1.5-2 trillion (by the George Stiglitz /World Bank economist)
add to that the debt created by George W (bigger in his term than ALL the debt by the previous presidents from George Washington combined)

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 11:52 PM

Doug--

Do I have explain to you yet again why Bush owes his 2004 election to the UN? You must be a little slow. But as a Bush supporter that wouldn't be unexpected. I have yet to meet a Bush supporter who even tried to make sense. Their arguments somehow always boil down to hate and fear of "the other".

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 12:02 AM

"hauling off and invading other countries on their own hook"

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

13.    Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola                                
Armenia
Australia
Austria                                
Azerbaijan
Bahrain                                                        
Belgium                        
Bulgaria
Canada                                
Colombia                        
Costa Rica                                        
Croatia                        
Czech Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
France
Georgia
Greece
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kuwait
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Moldova
Mudcatania
Mongolia
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Norway
Oman
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovania
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Taiwan
Thailand
Tonga
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 01:24 PM

"Serious consequences" does not necessarily mean war, Woody. As I recall, there were several questions still unresolved, such as the controversy over whether Saddam had WMDs or not (and it turns out that he did not). The United States jumped the gun and invaded anyway. The Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq even before 9/11. 9/11 gave them an excuse even though they were unable to establish any believable connection between the attacks and Saddam, and when it looked like the back-up excuses like WMDs were going south because the U.N. and other inspection teams were turning up vast quantites of nothing, the U. S. invaded.

That's what I mean by "on their own hook."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 06:21 PM

Quoth The Guest: This is about the UN not Bush

Not so, oh anonymous one! its ALL about the BuShite double standard which you seen to embrace.

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 07:30 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 10:24 PM

If you don't think Bush and the attitudes of his supporters have a lot to do with the current state of the UN, you're even more naive than I had thought.

It's called "starve the beast". Also the attitude of his true-believer supporters towards government in general. (Not that under Bush and the power-drunk Congress, much (in fact any) progress has been made towards this conservative goal.)

Oh yes, they're the great hypocrites
Pretending that they're doing good
Their need is such--they pretend too much...


But somehow, I think the electorate can tell.

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jul 06 - 12:09 AM

RD is an obvious Kofi supporter.

Whatever Kofi fails to do is ducky with RD. Like people dying in Darfur while Kofi attends the endless UN cocktail parties.

Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

          Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

          Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

          Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

          Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jul 06 - 09:53 PM

UNITED NATIONS — An e-mail sent by a Canadian U.N. observer and obtained by FOX News casts doubt on claims by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan that the Israeli attack on a U.N. peacekeeper observation post along the Lebanese border was intentional.

The email from Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener warned that the post had come under "unintentional" artillery fire and aerial bombing several times in the previous weeks, and that several Hezbollah positions were in the area of the patrol base.

"It is not safe or prudent for us to conduct normal patrol activities," wrote Kruedener in the July 18th e-mail. "(The artillery and aerial bombing) has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity."

Kruedener was one of four unarmed U.N. military observers killed in Tuesday's bombing.

"I think that e-mail is very important, because unfortunately these are practically the last words of somebody who eventually paid with his life," said Israel's U.N. ambassador Daniel Gillerman. "He's telling his commander that Israel was not targeting them and that there is Hezbollah activity around there."

This comes as the U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a statement on Thursday expressing shock and distress at Israel's bombing of the U.N. post, but fell short of condemnation

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jul 06 - 09:58 PM

". . . obtained by FOX News. . . ."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jul 06 - 10:02 PM

"....Posted by Don Firth......"

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jul 06 - 10:09 PM

Noticed by Don Firth. I'm not asserting anything. I'm just pointing out the source of the story.

Do you have a problem with that?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jul 06 - 10:13 PM

And at least I have the cojones to sign my work.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jul 06 - 11:09 PM

What work?

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: ard mhacha
Date: 28 Jul 06 - 04:37 AM

Weapons of mass destruction found in Israel, made in the USA, paid for by US taxes, used to kill the citizens of Lebanon.

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 06 - 05:20 AM

ard mhacha spouts anti Israeli propaganda on behalf of his favourite terrorist friends

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: ard mhacha
Date: 28 Jul 06 - 08:06 AM

In Iraq an estimated 150,000 people, mostly civilians have died as a result of that invasion and the country lies in ruins.
In recent days, we have seen a modern powerful state aided by the worlds most powerful state waging war on the civilian population of Lebanon.

Israel`s Prime Minister Olmert, in a speech before the attack, said, "the people of Lebanon will feel the pain" and he has been true to his word.
Over 500 killed already, half of them children, and 800,000 made homeless, you can kill people with weapons or you can deny them the essentials of life, same result-dead people.

As the destruction of Lebanon continues it does not take a genius to work out that whole generations are radicalised into a culture of resistance. A international community which fails to act to bring this carnage to an end can only feed into the sense of despair and helplessness.

Subject: RE: BS: Another U.S. veto at the U.N.
From: ard mhacha
Date: 28 Jul 06 - 04:35 PM

To-nights news does not give much hope as the chimp and the poodle paraded up to the mike to give Israel permission to carry on bombing.
The British people have told Blair time and again that they are against the war in Iraq and Lebanon, anyone with the slightest feeling of humanity and seeing the despair and suffering would have to have a heart of stone to think otherwise.