"Hey Kofi, I'm crushing your head, I'm crushing your head."
Posted on 02/17/2006 6:09:54 PM PST by FairOpinion
Bolton is the best thing to happen to the UN in a long time.
"Hey Kofi, I'm crushing your head, I'm crushing your head."
For "developing nations" read "third-world brutal dictatorships who trample on the human rights of their people and any other people they can lay their hands on." U.S. out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S.!
Tough fecal matter to the losers.
Ditto, US, just get the hell out of the UN, and the UN the hell out of the US. The UN is a criminal enterprise.
The UN is filled with sick, evil people. The more I read, the more infuriated I get.
Yeah, I'd be upset too.
I'm so concerned about the pig UN dictators getting upset, that I'll play a tune from the world's smallest violin...
Oopah! Toot! Toot! Tweet! Tweet! Ompaomphoompahoompah! Tweet! Tada! Foofaruu! ..I am the walrus! Twodutwodutwodu...Tadadadadada! Gaarumph! Tadadadada!
Enalagodalaveeda, baby...don't you know that I love you...Do! Do! Do! Do!Ooompfa. Toot! Toot...
Replacing corrupt Secretary-General Kofi Annan should be the first step of a top-to-bottom reform of the dysfunctional world body. Otherwise, the U.N. will lose what little confidence Americans have left in it.
Annan, whose term expires at the end of the year, last week once again displayed his institution's knee-jerk anti-American bias by calling for the closing of the United States' Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba.
Annan made a point of distancing himself from accusations of U.S. torture in a report released last Thursday by U.N. human rights officials. But he did echo the report's conclusion, saying Guantanamo should be shut down "as soon as possible."
In fact, the report wasn't an investigation of conditions at Guantanamo at all — its authors refused an invitation from the U.S. to visit the facility. It was just a warmed-over repetition of accusations previously made by lawyers for Gitmo detainees.
Smearing America never distracts the U.N. from gladly taking our money, though. The U.S. funds nearly a quarter of the U.N.'s budget and up to 27% of its peacekeeping operations. It turns out some "peacekeeping" U.S. taxpayers pay for includes sexual assault of war refugees by U.N. forces. Too bad Gitmo investigators were too busy to look into the matter of rapists wearing blue helmets.
A recent internal audit of U.N. peacekeeping operations found $298 million — 30% of the $1 billion total — "subject to waste, fraud or abuse," according to U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton.
====
PS. I think the UN lost their last chance a long time ago.
Part of me agrees with you.
The other part of me knows damn well the U.S. would pay for the move, and still be stuck with the U.N.-owned property in NYC, which would probably end up being used for 'international offices' or some other b.s. shorthand for 'Diplomat No-tell Mo-tel.'
And just WHAT are these "developing" nations developing into anyway?
Its nearly half a century since most former European colonies were gien their independence.
Sure, there were problems created by the European imperalists - tribes who hated each other thrown into the same national borders, national reasources plundered, no class of educated individuals to take over the control of the government.
But that was 50 YEARS AGO. Since then most of these "developing nations" have decayed into military dictatorships or anarchy. No matter how much aid or assistance is offered or thrown their way is wasted by the military thugs who control the government.
So why the hell do we care anything about these people?
We need more of an America first attitude among our political leaders. I want my President to be Presidnet of America, not of the world. I want us to be self-sufficient, not just in energy, but in foodstuffs and in consumable goods. Then we can tell the rest of the world to go to blazes.
US handling of UN reform angers developing nations Multinational Corporations.
Much better!
We can't. Whatever Clinton signed before he left office allowed the NGOs to partner with our governmental offices. The CFRs that were signed to allow this gave GRANTOR ownership.
I don't understand it more myself; but it scares the hell out of me.
I was just called by the NRA. They are a NGO in the UN. I don't understand what that means but the UN is having a big vote in June about taking away all guns from the world.
I asked why would that trump our Constitution? WE only have one vote. But pay 25% of the money? Of course the rest of the world thinks WE are the problem, because we don't get rid of our guns.
Why can't we kick them off our shores? I would have on 9/12/01 but that is just me, saying we need the office space. Let them fund in a 3rd world country w/o us and see how they do! And if they send a blue helmet to the door for my gun they can have it bullets first!
The CFRs for applying for the monies lends the grantors ownership. All the groups that receive the monies need to know what the terms and conditions are for braking contract.
These areas I can't offer info on. We need lawyers to post here.
So, if the National Institute of Health (or something) is partnered with our CDC on an initiative, what does that mean exactly? How can that relationship be terminated?
I don't know.
It's still better than keeping "Famous Anus" and his crew of incompetents, effendis, and malfactors..
Considering that most all of them disagreed with us on 113 anti-Israeli resolutions in the last 12 years, I seriously doubt that our "control" over them is a real fear. Dumb-squat media whores. sheesh.
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.