Toronto Escorts

Well don't worry..it is only Fox that reports it..another right wing conspiracy

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
.N. Response to Probe Troubles Senators

Friday, November 12, 2004



NEW YORK — Two U.S. senators investigating the U.N. Oil-for-Food (search) program have told U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (search) in a letter that they were "troubled" by his decision to withhold documents or witness testimony from lawmakers.

Sens. Norm Coleman (search) of Minnesota and Carl Levin (search) of Michigan sent a letter to Annan Tuesday in which they blasted Annan for "affirmatively preventing" their congressional panel from getting requested information.

"They are not providing access to U.N. personnel, not providing access to U.N. internal audits," Coleman told FOX News.

Coleman and Levin — respectively, the chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate Governmental Affairs investigations subcommittee — want to know how Saddam Hussein was able to pocket an estimated $11 billion through payoffs and oil smuggling.

Click here to read the senators' letter as well as other related correspondence (pdf).

The lawmakers are asking Annan to hand over documents outlining why the consulting firm Lloyd's Register, a London-based company, was dropped in favor of a firm his son, Kojo Annan (search), once worked for. A Lloyd's official asked for U.N. permission to cooperate with the panel but was denied.

"The organization has no objections to a contractor responding to authorized subpoenas for records, documents, tapes or other materials, subject to certain conditions. I note, however, that in the present case, the requested cooperation would be entirely on a voluntary basis … Under the circumstances, the U.N. does not authorize the provision of materials or information relating to its contract with Lloyd’s Register," Bruce C. Rashkow (search), director of the U.N. general legal division, wrote to a Lloyd’s official on Aug. 31.

Both Annan and his son's company, Swiss-based Cotecna Inspection SA, have denied any wrongdoing, but Annan has also not yet made available audits that could detail who exactly was getting money. The Oil-for-Food program was started in late 1996 as a way to let Iraq sell some oil to allow humanitarian goods reach Iraqis but investigators now believe the program was a multi-billion dollar corruption scheme.

Asked about the senators’ letter, Annan’s communications director said he would look into the claims that his boss is not cooperating. The spokesman said the situation was "very awkward" and he called the senators’ communication "a troubling letter."

The Senate panel also wants to talk to Benon Sevan (search), the former head of the Oil-for-Food program. Sevan has been accused of receiving bribes from Saddam but he denies the charges.

"We have a number of questions we want to ask the individual in charge of the program and the most serious question that has been reported: ‘Why did you get these vouchers? What was the reason you got them in the first place?'"

Sevan has promised to cooperate with investigators and has denied any wrongdoing. But he has yet to agree to testify before congressional panels.

Coleman told FOX News he's angry that the United Nations has so far tried to block his investigation. Senate hearings start Monday.

The CIA and others say Saddam rigged a global network of bribes, payoffs and kickbacks, including hundreds of fake front companies, to earn his billions. The United Nations is conducting its own investigation, but that report is not due until next year.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
I like the last line best, those UN guys just move so fast.

We really need to stop our payments again.

OTB
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
Not in your best interests.
But feel free.
Sooner or later another superpower is going to come along and smack the US upside the head, to the detriment of many other nations.
The only reasonable course for the US to take is to work for change in the UN - but to keep supporting it.
"Those UN guys" come from supporting nations - the US included (and, in fact, over-represented), but hey, why let that stand in the way of a witch-hunt? Or are you just trying to obfuscate the facts of an illegal invasion? Johnny Cochrane, is that you?
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Ranger68 said:
Not in your best interests.
But feel free.
Sooner or later another superpower is going to come along and smack the US upside the head, to the detriment of many other nations.
The only reasonable course for the US to take is to work for change in the UN - but to keep supporting it.
"Those UN guys" come from supporting nations - the US included (and, in fact, over-represented), but hey, why let that stand in the way of a witch-hunt? Or are you just trying to obfuscate the facts of an illegal invasion? Johnny Cochrane, is that you?
This nonsense was happening BEFORE the invasion thank you very much.

The UN is like any bureaucracy - a mass of inefficiency filled with people who want to work in a bureaucracy.

I think the US should keep the UN on a short leash and make them reform or evict them. At the end of the day if the US backed out the UN would fail (see League of Nations example from your history books).

You will not live long enough to see the US fall - this I know for sure.

OTB
 

superquad1968

Lucifer's Assistant
Nov 26, 2003
659
0
16
Hell. Where Else?
www.terb.ca
OTB,

*This is not meant to be inflammatory just an honest to goodness question*

Why should the US be the one to "...keep the UN on a short leash..."?

*The rest is* :)

Warning about superpowers. Historically superpowers have come and gone [Britain of the 1700s, 1800s was larger than the US of 1900] What's to prevent a shift happening again? I'll take bets that the next superpower will be China given their population.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
onthebottom said:
This nonsense was happening BEFORE the invasion thank you very much.

The UN is like any bureaucracy - a mass of inefficiency filled with people who want to work in a bureaucracy.

I think the US should keep the UN on a short leash and make them reform or evict them. At the end of the day if the US backed out the UN would fail (see League of Nations example from your history books).

You will not live long enough to see the US fall - this I know for sure.

OTB
So? It was happening before the invasion. What does that change, exactly?

I think your statements are a poor idea, speaking on behalf of the American people, most of whom have no desire to return to the "glory days of Empire", unlike the current administration.

Of course the UN would fail if the US backed out. It would fail if China backed out. It would fail if the European powers backed out. That you fail to recognize this fact highlights your ignorance of the raison d'etre of the organization, and your continued blind acceptance of the fading myth of US global dominance.

Dude, you don't know ANYTHING, never mind "for sure".
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
Ranger68 said:
..........and your continued blind acceptance of the fading myth of US global dominance.


"I am not consumed by a hatred for Bush. I am convinced that the US is seeking to extend its empire by whatever means it can - including the abrogation of long-term treaties, the denunciation and abandonment of long-time allies, and the breaking of international law. These are not good things".

Could you clarify your position RAnger? What are we now..a fading empire?.....or an empire that wants to rule the world?

PS,
Whenever you have lived in a foreign country and are capable of communicating in a foreign language, as good as in your own. You have the right to make fun of me.
Talking about "tactics of discrediting your opponent". You lefties are something else. You invent a tactic, than someone else is using it on you, than you cry...
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
superquad1968 said:
OTB,

*This is not meant to be inflammatory just an honest to goodness question*

Why should the US be the one to "...keep the UN on a short leash..."?

*The rest is* :)

Warning about superpowers. Historically superpowers have come and gone [Britain of the 1700s, 1800s was larger than the US of 1900] What's to prevent a shift happening again? I'll take bets that the next superpower will be China given their population.
And a fair question. Only to the extent we can, and we can via our financial support, material support (troops......) and credibility. Same as you (Canada) really. We have a bit more power and thus a bit more ability to change the UN but at the end of the day everyone should do it - I was just speaking to what the US should do which was not to be exclusive.

OTB
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
langeweile said:
Could you clarify your position RAnger? What are we now..a fading empire?.....or an empire that wants to rule the world?

PS,
Whenever you have lived in a foreign country and are capable of communicating in a foreign language, as good as in your own. You have the right to make fun of me.
Talking about "tactics of discrediting your opponent". You lefties are something else. You invent a tactic, than someone else is using it on you, than you cry...
My position has always been perfectly clear. You are a fading empire whose current administration is bent on re-establishing itself. It's not going to work, and the sooner this little experiment fails, the better off all of us will be. The UN, right now, needs a strong United States, not a dangerous rogue state.

I'm not sure what your whole post-script is about. Just another rant, I guess.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,533
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Ranger68 said:
My position has always been perfectly clear. You are a fading empire whose current administration is bent on re-establishing itself. It's not going to work, and the sooner this little experiment fails, the better off all of us will be. The UN, right now, needs a strong United States, not a dangerous rogue state.

I'm not sure what your whole post-script is about. Just another rant, I guess.

So what country are you from?

and your ansestors?
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
Ranger68 said:
My position has always been perfectly clear. You are a fading empire whose current administration is bent on re-establishing itself. It's not going to work, and the sooner this little experiment fails, the better off all of us will be. The UN, right now, needs a strong United States, not a dangerous rogue state.

I'm not sure what your whole post-script is about. Just another rant, I guess.
You were making fun of my spelling and I pointed out to you, that english is not my mother language. While i am trying hard to perfect it, sometimes I amke mistakes.
I wonder how you would fair in a foreign language? How is your French?

Fading empire,??? Where do you get this stuff from? Do you make this up or do you read about it.
After having lived in the USA for about 15 years I can assure you, nobody is dreaming about an empire. That is fantasy made up by non-americans and those that hate the staates.
The average American really doesn't give a shit about what goes on beyond their borders. Most Americans never left the country or own a passport. Most average Americans are too busy working and enjoying live. If the term "Live and let Live" ever had a meaning it is an important part of the average Americans psyche.
If you ever lived there you would understand that.

I am sure there will be some comments now about American ignorance, can't wait for them. Most people are gripping about Americans have absolutely no idea what we are all about. Those that complain the loudest have maybe vacationed there, but in general have never lived there.
Ignorance is a widely spread disease.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Ranger68 said:
My position has always been perfectly clear. You are a fading empire whose current administration is bent on re-establishing itself. It's not going to work, and the sooner this little experiment fails, the better off all of us will be. The UN, right now, needs a strong United States, not a dangerous rogue state.


In response I would offer:

“America is unique in time and space. Others might be able to defy the US, but they can neither compel nor vanquish it-except in the meaningless sense of nuclear devastation that will be mutual. The sweep of its interests, the weight of its resources and the margin of its usable power are unprecedented. None other than Hubert Védrine, the French foreign minister, has made the point in all its glory--though grudgingly, one must assume. 'The United States of America', he proclaimed, 'today predominates on the economic, monetary [and] technological level, and in the cultural area . . . In terms of power and influence, it is not comparable to anything known in modern history.' In short, the U.S. is a hyper-puissance, a 'hyper-power'.�

For the entire article see: http://www.cis.org.au/Events/JBL/JBL03.htm

Sheraton on the Park is a nice hotel (not great) but Sydney is not to be believed.

And just for fun, if you believe the massive Chinese military has a hope: http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/defense/030915b.asp

Remember, power is only useful if it can be projected.

OTB
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts