UN's Robinson Calls for Suspension of Air Strikes

Reuters ^ | Friday October 12 7:39 AM ET | Reuters

[Grut]

MOVE THE UN TO SUDAN! MOVE THE UN TO SUDAN! MOVE THE UN TO SUDAN!

Nope, not the Sudan; Strasbourg. Think of the wonderful pissing contests they could have with the EU as they both jockeyed for power.

[rwfromkansas]

I wonder why Robinson didn't feel this way before Sept. 11? As if miss humane did not know what was going on! Come on Mary.....you just want to stall the strikes.

[DonnerT]

I think all the 'kind, generous, peace loving' Muslims of the world should provide all the humanitarian aid to those poor people. After all they supported the terrorists that got them into this position in the first place.

Besides, starving saves ordinance.

[SocialMeltdown]

When do we start the air strikes on the UN?

[dennisw]

This evil witch organized the anti US/ anti Israel/ anti Semitic/ racism conference in Durban South Africa. 

That's all I need to know.

[BigWaveBetty]

Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson called on Friday for a suspension of air strikes against Afghanistan in order to provide aid to civilians before the onset of winter.

Hey Mary, the next call you should make is to:
1-800-WAH-WAH-WAH!

[mdittmar]

That's bill clinton bullsh!t speak,this is WAR!

[ohioman]

Our military effort is not being coordinated as a UN effort. Get that. NO UN. F the UN. This is a US-led coalition.

[hellinahandcart]

MOVE THE UN TO SUDAN! MOVE THE UN TO SUDAN! MOVE THE UN TO SUDAN!

Good idea. We need office space in this city. We'll level the U.N. complex and put up office towers with a river view.

And the real estate agents will have a field day finding buyers for all those missions and embassies. A win-win situation--taxpayers instead of rich foreign parasites.

[No Truce With Kings]

Send e-mail with comments and suggestions to: webadmin.hchr@unog.ch

I sent the following to that e-mail address:

I note where Mary Robinson has taken leave of her senses to demand that the United States "suspend of air strikes against Afghanistan in order to provide aid to civilians before the onset of winter."

I was unaware that the United Nations put seriously delusional individuals in charge of major agencies such as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

It seems that Ms. Robinson has not noticed (or does not care) that three attacks were launched against the United States by individuals in Afghanistan, that those attacks killed nearly 7000 people, that the Afghan government refused to turn those responsible over to the United States, and that those responsible for the tragedies in the United States are promising more such attacks, which may include an incident of biological warfare in Florida.

Further, Ms. Robinson's ignorance (or possibly naïveté, although naïveté on this level verges on the delusional) blinds her to the fact that the starvation in Afghanistan is caused primarily, not by American bombing but by the targets of the American bombing -- the Taliban government -- which in the past has blocked food aid from the United Nations, and is currently practising their interrogation techniques on United Nations personnel by regulary beating those personnel.

If Ms. Robinson seriously believes that a pause in United States bombing -- prior to the completion of its objective, the destruction of the Taliban -- will permit food to reach Afghan civilians (or rather Afghan civilians not related to Taliban leadership), then perhaps she should consider taking a long leave of absence so that she can check herself into a mental health clinic. She obviously needs treatment more involved than that possible through weekly visits to a therapist. I understand that Switzerland, where you are located, has many excellent facilities for treating such delusional individuals.

If Ms. Robinson does not realistically believe what she is saying then she should resign. Anyone who would choose to play politics with such a situation should.

Again, I hope that you will see that Ms. Robinson gets the mental therapy she so desperately needs.

[Kate22]

It is not 'Clinton speak' or even opinion - it is fact. Sorry if you can't deal with that.

[lavaroise]

But what?! b!tch! Risk using instead US lives as shield? Better us as collateral damage than they? I say let us literaly use the UN as a shield against terrorists since it is such a peace loving entity. No US protection of UN buildings in NY, Osama can gas it.

[anniegetyourgun]

No one in the Whitehouse is listening.

[Ingtar]

Ms. Robinson, we find ourselves in desperate need of office space. You have a prime set of buildings right where said office space is desired. Solution: please remove your organization to those desperate in Afghanistan, giving our enemies aid and comfort, us a new set of targets, and new office space.

[Kate22]

Our military effort is not being coordinated as a UN effort. Get that. NO UN. F the UN. This is a US-led coalition.

Yes, it is a US-led coalition but the action is being carried out with UN approval. This is a much published fact. Nato has invoked its Charter which allows for an attack against one member to be treated as an 'attack against all', which is why Britain and other countries are involved. Fact not opinion.

[Fixit]

You know, W has been successfully sand-bagging the Democrats for months now.

I wonder if his decision to pay up on back UN dues is an attempt to give them just enough rope to hang themselves?

[Kate22]

You're speaking to the wrong person. In fact I have great reservations about the 'evolution' of the UN of late and what it has turned into.

[Woodstock]

It is also worth remembering that the people of Afghanistan are not the Taleban regime which is an unelected dictatorship. The Afghan civilians bear no guilt whatsoever which is why President Bush and his administration have made it very clear that they are not being targeted.

This does not mean that we have a responsibility to feed them. maybe Mary should form a union with Hillary> After all isn't this really *for the children?*

[Mr.E]

Check this out UN haters...

[William Terrell]

I have a rather controversial view of this "civilian" thing. In my view, the government of a country, the leadership of which is generally responsible for a war or conflict, is alway there because of the people of the country, whether by commission or omission. Therefore they bear the responsibility for what their government does.

The devil is in the numbers. The leadership, including its military, is always a very small percentage of the population.