Skip to comments.Koffi Annan...The US isn't doing enough....
Posted on 07/13/2004 3:15:40 AM PDT by CanadianBloodAmericanHeart
Just watching our socialist CBC network up here in Canukistan, and Koffi Annan says that the US has spent way more money on the war on terror and not enough on AIDS. What? 15 billion that Bush committed isn't enough?? What did Clinton give? Let's see some of the other countries step up to the plate. Canada gave 100 million, but Annan won't say anything about us here because we bow at the UN alter. Bush should ask the UN to use some 'oil for food' money that they have on hand...
Amazing that Annan even dare to show himself in public.
What has the UN done for anybody, ever?
Palestinians and other terrorists not included.
Tell him to get back to us after about 10 years, 14 resolutions, and 300,000 to a million people have passed. It was good enough for Iraq, wasn't it?
AIDS is not our problem.
For once I agree with Annan. Bush hasn't done enough.
He should drop kick that son of a ----- and the United Nations right through the Gibralter straights! We should be so lucky to have them meet the same fate as Atlantis and it's citizens.
BTW, for all the hot air hissed around abouts regarding AIDS, not one of these do-gooder peckerheads has had the gonads to mention that it's a cummunicable disease, and should have been treated that way from the very beginning. May C. Everett Koop and the powers that be at the CDC at the time, rot in hell for their inaction that cost many lives.
How much has Ghana given. George Soros has given millions to defeat George Bush how much has he given in fact how much has the Tides Foundation given.What we should do is withdraw from the UN and give that money to Aids research in this country.
Maybe its time the UN did something worthy. What have they done except mess things up wherever they go.
Please go to www.UNHCR.ch or www.UNICEF.org Thanks for your interest in the work of the United Nations organization.
I wonder if Benon Sevan became a billionaire by pocketing all that change we used to collect on Halloween for UNICEF.
Almost entirely paid for by the United States, and the tax dollars collected from her citizens.
Nice try, but no cigar.
So let's try again....what has the UN accomplished?
1. Standing by while genocide occurs in Rwanda.
2. Continuing to foul up the situation concerning the former Yugoslavia, and conducting only a farce of a trial for Slobodan Milosevic.
3. Not giving a damn about the Israeli women and children who are attacked simply for existing, yet being all too concerned about the rights of the Palestinian thugs who kill them.
4. Allowed itself to be composed of a large proportion of totalitarian regimes who use UN pussyfooting for no reason other than to vex the United States.
Next time, hold your sarcasm until I ask for it.
Oh, let's not forget the Oil for Food scandal. Shame on me for not including it.
So you think one should abolish UNHCR, UNICEF, UNESCO just because the political section is corrupt? Just by the way, don´t you think that other free states are paying for the UN as well? Just look at Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Netherlands, Italy, Spain who alltogether pay more to the UN than the rest of the member states. The US pay 25% of the UN budget. I call that hardly "entirely paid for by the US". I´m serious: the UN is important, though I fully agree that it needs a reform.
I do not believe that my country should continue to fund an overwhelmingly corrupt organization (you yourself admit it is corrupt) for the sake of a small handful of programs which are thus corrupt by their very nature of being run by the UN, and which could just as easily exist in bodies outside of the UN.
The United States already gives plenty of aid directly to underdeveloped countries every year, outside of what it has to provide to the UN.
I can't say I have a problem with the abolition of the UN. However, I would settle for the United States simply leaving the UN and allowing it to more completely devote itself to worthless talk so that your country and other talk-and-no-action states can feel good about themselves.
Even 15 billion can't make them keep it in their grass skirt.
If I was Kofi Kake with the biggest scandal in the world I'd keep my mouth shut about what "others" should do
What did France give? Iran?
Michael, a clear majority of Americans would be absolutely delighted if your nation would care to be the host nation for the UN parasites. You can have them any day you want them, kit and kaboodle, gratis.
The U.N. is nothing more than a decent, noble idea that (predictably) degenerated into a bloated, money-sucking bureaucracy dominated by Third World America-haters. That, my friend, is the gospel truth. You can try to deny it, but it's the truth. We don't need them. They've proven wholly ineffective at providing "peace keeping" forces wherever they've gone in (and always too late).
The examples you provide of supposedly "good" U.N. programs could and ARE being performed by private agencies far, far more effectively and efficiently. No dice.
They're a money-sink and a forum for America bashing. Screw 'em.
I think you're both right.
I believe that the charitable efforts of the UN have done good things.
But I also believe that the missions those groups perform, such as food relief, cultural and material preservation, and the like, can be done by other groups. In other words, the best part of the UN can be done by lots of people besides the UN.
Perhaps if that third world Asshole doesn't like the amount of money we spend on these kinds of things he could get his crooked kid to kick in a few million that THEY SCAMED FROM THE OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM the ripped of the starving people of Iraq.
For decades former CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite has been hailed as the most trusted man in America, based on the findings of a prominent 1972 national public opinion poll.
So what are we to make of his 1999 speech before United Nations delegates on the occasion of his receiving the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award, in which he said:
It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace.
"To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That would be a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order.
"But the American colonies did it once and brought forth one of the most nearly perfect unions the world has ever seen."
Can it be that the most trusted man in America actually advocates the end of American sovereignty which necessarily means the end of America as a free and independent nation ?
I must confess that I do not share Cronkites naïve and scary faith in the new order. But Ill tell you who does none other than our former President and Commander-in-Chief, Bill Clinton.
On March 13, 2003 Clinton gave a speech in which he said that the US should strengthen the UN and other mechanisms of cooperation and then added: "We need to be creating a world that we would like to live in when we're not the biggest power on the block."
What kind of world will that be? Well, if people like if Bill Clinton and Walter Cronkite have their way:
It will be a world in which the US Constitution is no longer the Supreme Law of the Land on American soil. Instead, America will be just another political subdivision of the United Nations, and our citizens will be subject to its laws and regulations.
It will be a world in which our constitutional Bill of Rights will be superceded by the Orwellian mishmash of entitlements and obligations that constitutes the so-called UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in which our own natural liberties will be subordinated to the social engineering agendas, political maneuverings and proven corruptions of UN delegates, officials and bureaucrats.
It will be a world in which Americans will be required to pay yet another tier of global taxes, perhaps even a global income tax.
It will be a world in which the wealth and property of Americans will be freely expropriated and redistributed around the globe by an international government that affords the American people only a tiny minority of representation.
It will be a world in which control of American military power and resources will be ceded to the United Nations, with the result that the UN will be able to enforce its will on our people by virtue of having the most powerful military force in the world.
It will be a world in which America will not have the authority to defend itself directly, but will instead be required to look to the UN to provide our national security.
Ever since the UN came into existence in 1945, some Americans have been warning us about its potential threat to our national sovereignty. For decades, those individuals have been dismissed and castigated as isolationists, ideologues and right-wing kooks.
But today, there can be no mistake about the UNs true agenda, its plans for American sovereignty in particular and the concept of national sovereignty in general. Consider the following principles set forth by the Charter for Global Democracy, and/or endorsed by Kofi Annan in his September 2000 report to the UN Millennium Assembly:
Regulation by the UN of all transnational corporations and financial institutions
Independent taxing authority to ensure that the Organization is given the necessary resources to carry out its mandate."
Elimination of veto power and permanent member status of the Security Council (thus eliminating the ability of the US to veto UN action).
Authorization for a standing UN army
UN registration of all arms and the reduction of all national armies.
Compulsory submission of all nations to jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
The requirement that individual and national submit to compliance with all UN "Human Rights" treaties. Among these so-called human rights as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the United States is a signatory are the following:
o A requirement for a total welfare-state economy: the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control
o UN-mandated control of schools and educational content: elementary education shall be free and compulsory.
I completely reject the idea that human liberty and prosperity can be enhanced by giving the UN or any global government such sweeping power over the nations of the world, especially our own. As American citizens, we cannot achieve peace and justice by distancing ourselves even further from the source of government policy making and law enforcement.
I believe that those working to advance the development of a world government are deluded by noble sounding dreams that cannot be realized and should not be attempted. In the 20th century, we have too often seen the human tragedy and disaster that results when high-minded social engineers seize the power to redistribute wealth they have not created and to otherwise impose their values on average citizens by force.
How much worse will it be when we have a world governing authority with even more power than our own already bloated and too-powerful American government?
If the world awakens one day to find itself in the grip of UN imposed tyranny and corruption, where then will we turn to regain our rights and take back control of our lives? The answer is: nowhere. There will be no chance of escape, and nowhere left to run. There will only be endless global oppression and civil wars.
The creation of a global UN government with real enforcement power to commandeer our resources, micromanage our environment and interfere in our lives is a nightmare vision of a dystopian future.
I think it is time for the United States to revisit its relationship with the United Nations. Certainly I do believe that the UN can play a legitimate role in world infrastructure by providing a neutral forum in which national governments can meet to debate their differences, negotiate their interests and act in concert to address global issues.
But if the UN continues to pursue its consolidation of global power as an international governing authority, the US should withdraw our membership and terminate our financial support.
I see no correlation between the amount spent to fight AIDS and the tendency to abstain from dangerous sex. Until I do, I am not in favor of any money collected under duress from the taxpayer to provide aid to facilitate more sexual misconduct.
Bump for later reading
The U.S. is doing plenty for AIDS.
1. Striking down the laws against sodomy.
2. Legalizing same sex marriage.
3. Teaching children that gays are normal.
Just to name a few.
Didn't the aid package to African nations from the US total 25 Billion ?
As the husband of a wife currently undergoing breast cancer treatments, why AIDS, why not cancer?
It kills more people than AIDS.
Oh, I KNOW, I KNOW!!!!!
It's not politically correct.
Yeah, perhaps we should sponsor some more oil-for-food programs so you can skim off the top and fatten your disgusting socialist tovarich's.
The Breast Cancer Activists have a real problem, don't they? Since their loudest supporters are also braying for homosexual rights (power), they can't really call for aids funding to be cut to support their most favored cause.
Not that I don't agree with you completely about the disgusting preferential treatment HIV gets over cancer -- I do completely. But I can't resist a bit of schadenfreude when the "Groups" find themselves pitted against each other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.