Bush calls for end to UN sanctions on Iraq

AFP ^ | April 16, 2003

[anniegetyourgun]

Libs are never held to account on their inconsistent thinking.

[Mister Baredog]

Everyday, this President becomes more like the first Republican President.

Kewl!

[MEGoody]

Well, of course the sanctions should end. That's a no-brainer.

[Shermy]

A way to attack the UN's undeserved reputation is for exposes in the WSJ, Time, etc. about the operations of the Food for Oil program, for one.

[TLBSHOW]

good luck!

[Shermy]

How about a Food for Oil expose? Money, France, weapons, payoffs, administration fees; cheated Iraqi people - a sure fire hit IMO.

[JoeSchem]

There's a certain amount of irony in that the UN has to be told to end sanctions. Ya mean they haven't figured that one out yet? I wonder if the food-for-oil program has been a kind of gravy-train for the UN bureaucrats, with them skimming 10% overhead. Now it's all going away . . . .

[MeekOneGOP]

I bet Kofi Annan will have a hissy fit ! That's his bread and butter, BIG time retirement plan Bush wants to cut.

Here's a pre-emptive Kofi post:

To Kofi Annan with love,

Bart

[Carry_Okie]

We raised our payments to the UN

We didn't. We merely gave the UN back what we owed them in arrears.

The $60 million we just added wasn't for arrears. It was for "back dues" to UNESCO. Since when do we pay dues for a membership we didn't hold?

empowered the Department of Education

Completely irrelevant from the UN or/and their influence.

There you have a lot to learn. The nation is in fact implementing an international curriculum that originated in the Soviet Union.

are still implementing Sustainable Development

Is it law, though?

Agenda21 is called "soft law," but it is being implemented local legislation through pressure from agencies of the Federal governent that have not quit paying dues to the IUCN. By joining, those agencies promise to adhere to UN treaties whether ratified or not. Bush has not canceled those memberships. Meanwhile, Congress is implementing legislation to firm up that commitment to Sustainable Development (basically land use control for political sale; i.e., racketeering).

are using regulatory power to reduce carbon dioxide emissions

Voluntary, not mandatory for industry.

The price of carbon credits is in many electric bills now and there is a bill in Congress to require them (without a two thirds requirement you will note). How voluntary is that to you when it is obvious that "global warming" is a discredited farce? Mind you, there are adverse environmental effects of CO2 that nobody talks about.

and rejoined UNESCO.

It's already part of the UN. When did we "rejoin" it?

Reagan got us out of UNESCO. Bush promised to rejoin it as part of the deal to get 1441. So, tell us what he got for that? Since the UN didn't follow through on 1441, did he repudiate that deal?

[Stultis]

"Iraq should be able to trade freely, and we need to transition from the oil-for-food program as soon as possible and help restore a normal trading relationship with the global economy,"

THIS IS UNFAIR! It is cold, heartless, callous and immoral. France, Russia and the U.N. have grown to depend on skimming from the Iraqi people, and receiving obscene profit margins (in exchange for money laundering and kickbacks) from their leader, Saddam. Who will compensate them for their losses? My God, expense accounts at the U.N. may have to be slashed. Do you realize how expensive a five course meal, with wine, cognac and cigars, is at a fine New York restaurante?!

[DannyTN]

We can always change the name. After all, there are no UN sanctions that apply to "New Texas" or the government thereof.

[CA Conservative]

Remember, Bush called for the oil-for-food to restart IMMEDIATELY.

That's another one you can explain for me.

Simple. Even if Bush can get the UN to lift the sanctions, that process will take time. The people in Iraq will still need food, clothing, etc. in the meantime. You can bet any stories of Iraqi children starving to seath will be blamed on Bush, so he is not going to allow anything like that.

The oil-for-food program is in place, and there are goods that have already been paid for but not delivered. Getting those goods flowing again right away allows Bush time to get a new government set up in Baghdad, then worry about the diplomatic headache.

[Carry_Okie]

You are getting a little strained with the logic here annie.

It's the lightningrod issues that this administration has stiffed the U.N. on - CEDAW, Race-baiting and anti-Israel conference in Durbin, Iraq/1441, U.N. ambassadorial & NGO appointments, and more. These things put the U.N. on the defense (along with liberals) vis-a-vis issues that appear to fall along lines of 'right and wrong' in the minds of average Americans.

"Lightening rod issues" look like a smoke screen to me. Is Israel as much of a "lightening rod issue" as socializing control of all land use in the United States?

We can't win the PR war with Americans (the only people we need to convince) by stiffing UNESCO.

We have been out of UNESCO since Reagan was President. Voters don't care about UNESCO one whit.

The most daring move by the administration was Kyoto - which was a politically dicey decision (because it can't be turned against the U.N.), but had to be done.

Then why is the administration slowly implementing the equivalent of Kyoto through federal agencies as we speak? Has Bush told Congres he would veto the Kyoto surrogate legislation currently in the pipeline?

I know you have pet issues, but the larger mission is to cast the U.N. as mean-spirited, self-interested, and hate-embracing people.

First of all, property rights is not a "pet issue," it's the life blood of a free market economy. Second, "mean spirited and hate-embracing" is kindergarten. Nobody cares about how "mean" the UN is. Criminal corruption, abetting the illegal sale of weapons used to kill our soldiers, and abetting genocide will get their attention.

Once Americans embrace that image (which is actually true of the U.N.), they will be ready to get out. It's an uphill battle after decades of U.N. and the Left putting out propaganda about their "caring global agenda of bringing the world together in peace and harmony." We must methodically prove to Americans that the U.N. is uncaring, paraochial, and willing to suffer injustice for false peace. Only then will this nation be willing to throw the U.N. overboard.

Wrong argument, because it's too abstract. US control of a conquered nation gave us West Germany, Japan, and the tigers of the Asian economy. UN control gave us North Korea, a divided Vietnam, Rwanda, and returning to Iraq.

[Carry_Okie]

The oil-for-food program is in place, and there are goods that have already been paid for but not delivered. Getting those goods flowing again right away allows Bush time to get a new government set up in Baghdad, then worry about the diplomatic headache.

I've gone over OFF with others at length. It may seem like a logical idea, but it is very unlikely to work out that way in practice. All the money is in UN coffers. They won't cut loose with a penny until we make more concessions to UN involvement and will drag their feet for more. Much of the money will disappear into corrupt rat-holes. My bet is that we could be selling oil on the global market and getting the proceeds to Iraq long before the Iraqis ever see a nickel out of the UN. Besides, we are better off getting the trading going again in dollars. They can keep their damned euros which they will then have to dump before they drop even further in value pursuant to restarting the trade in greenbacks.

[SarahW]

Read my lips: "No new Texas!"

[DannyTN]

Read my lips: "No new Texas!"

Oh, well that explains that tax increase.

[freekitty]

Me too.

[anniegetyourgun]

Like I said, I know you have your pet issues. Best of luck trying to get the U.S. out of the U.N. on the basis of property rights issues.

[anniegetyourgun]

BTW, I'm well aware of the UNESCO history, but you are the one who brought it up as a reason for abandoning the U.N. I used it as an example of how NOT to win the PR war against the U.N. But then, I can see you aren't willing to see the forest for the trees, and therefore missed my point.

IOWs, while you sing to the choir (convince conservatives of what they already know and stand for on property rights, environmental nonsense, etc.), this administration is trying to win over the 1/2 in the middle who vote for such things as Bill Clinton. That mushy middle has to be convinced on 'real issues' (for the children, for fairness, etc.) before they will be ready to abandon the U.N. These are not particularly 'thinking' people and must therefore be appealed to on emotional issues. It's your arguments that are too abstract for this group. We aren't the ones to be convinced, and the Left will never want to abandon their one-world ideas. But the middle can be appealed to by casting the U.N. in a negative light on issues that tug at their heartstrings. That's not your world (or mine), but it's political reality.

In the meantime, you hang in there on your one-note. It's still a good one that conservatives like to hear.

[Carry_Okie]

Best of luck trying to get the U.S. out of the U.N. on the basis of property rights issues.

That isn't all of what I suggested, is it? I seem to remember criminal corruption, abetting the illegal sale of weapons used to kill our soldiers, passive genocide, how UN control gave us North Korea, a divided Vietnam, Rwanda, and returning to Iraq versus how US control of conquered nations gave us West Germany, Japan, and the tigers of the Asian economy. ... don't you?

If the way you choose to debate is to narrowly characterize my arguments out of context with a flippant comment like that, there is no point in discussing this further.