John Kerry's #1 Ally - the U.N.
 

John Kerry's #1 Ally - the U.N.
Posted October 8, 2004
By Michael Ashbury

In theory the United Nations would be the ideal body to control political disputes around the world and stop tyrants before they take military action against their neighbor or even their own people. Unfortunately, in 54 years of existence, the U.N., though offering a forum for discussion, has proven itself impotent to stop tyrannical governments or even intercede in humanitarian disasters.

John Kerry, however believes that any US involvement in world problems should first pass a Global Test; defined as the United Nations. His belief in the UN started with his father who was a Foreign Service Officer assigned to the Bureau of United Nations Affairs. In 1970, when John Kerry first ran for Congress, he told the Harvard Crimson, "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed throughout the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

A colossal example of the failure of the United Nations to lead the World is the "Oil for Food Scandal" that currently engulfs the organization. The "Oil for Food Scandal" grew out of the UN agreement at the end of the first Gulf War.

As one of the conditions for a cease-fire Iraq and Saddam Hussein were restricted as to how many barrels of oil they could sell on an annual basis to support the food and medical needs of Iraqi citizens. A noble agreement to protect the Iraqi people.

However members of the United Nations and especially members of the Security Council who were charged with overseeing the actions of the Hussein government circumvented this agreement.

And to get around UN restrictions, Hussein negotiated sweetheart deals with member countries including those on Security Council that allowed them to purchase oil at less than market price and then resell that oil at a profit, pocketing the difference after they kicked back a percentage to Hussein's personal account.

Monies, which Saddam used to build his Palaces and build his enormous stockpile of weapons. The Wall Street Journal (Oct. 6, 2004) reported that even the head of the "Oil for Food" program received rights for 13.3 million barrels of Iraqi oil, pocketing $1.2 million for his efforts. Reports also indicate that even the Secretary General's own son participated in this program.

A report, which appeared in the Iraqi daily Al-Mada, on Jan 29, 2004, lists 270 companies, organizations, and individuals who were awarded allocations (vouchers) of crude oil by Saddam Hussein's regime. The beneficiaries reside in 50 countries: 16 Arab, 17 European, 9 Asian, and the rest from sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America; many on the UN's Security Council. Only a portion of the 270 recipients are listed and identified below. Recipients include heads of state, state companies, political parties, and individuals.

The countries of residence include:

Country Sweetheart Options

(Barrels of oil)

Canada: 1 million barrels
United States: (Not the US Govt.) 10.5 million barrels.
Great Britain: 1 million barrels
France: 69.2 million barrels
Switzerland: 36 million barrels
Italy: 3 million barrels
Spain: 3 million barrels
Yugoslavia: 12.5 million barrels
Romania: 5.5 million barrels.
Hungary: 4.7 million barrels.
Bulgaria: 12 million barrels
Slovakia: 1 million barrels.
Austria: 1 million barrels.
Brazil: 4.5 million barrels
Egypt: 46.6 million barrels
Libya: 1 million barrels.
Sub-Saharan Africa: 9 million barrels
Palestinians: 37.5 million barrels
Oman: 5 million barrels.
Syria: 33 million barrels
Lebanon: 13.5 million barrels
Jordan: 40 million barrels
Qatar: 16 million barrels
India: 1 million barrels.
Indonesia: 2 million barrels
Myanmar: 1 million barrels.
Ukraine: 9 million barrels
Belarus: 3 million barrels
Russia: 658.2 million barrels

From the list you can see why members of the United Nations, and the Security Council in particular , were reluctant remove Saddam Hussein, who was benefiting them personally to the tune of millions of dollars a year.

In addition these same countries were benefiting by contracts for arms and other consumer and industrial goods worth billions of dollars a year. In that regard Saddam also owed many of these countries billions of dollars for goods delivered but never paid for. To destroy his regime meant the loss of billions of dollars, which they were unwilling to do. And, this is the organization that a John Kerry Administration wants to yield the sovereignty of the United States?

Michael Ashbury, a noted researcher and author, is the author of ''Who is the REAL John Kerry?'' (Booksurge.com 2004).

email the author

Yeah so?

And 80% of the crap in your house is made in China... a COMMUNIST country that enslaves people and often looks at workers as a commodity that ships their people in containers over the ocean to do slave labor work here in the States.

My point? Let's see us march our asses into China and perform an "Operation Freedom" on their asses. Yeah right. You know, the way we did it when they threatened the "freedom" of Kuwait?

Stop the crap already. Kerry was no winner either, but this one we have now is the bottom of the bottom, for God's sake, he couldn't even run an oil company, so the masses elected him to run the COUNTRY?

Before we had him there was NO 9/11, there was NO London Bombing, and there was NO war in Iraq of Afganistan. If you blindly let the blind lead you'll you'll fall off a cliff.

9/11 was 100% the fault of the democrats....Bill Clinton specifically....

Kerry was a whiner...who did not have the stomach to do a full tour of duty that was 12 months....he was there ony 4 untill he sucked up to enough people to get his coward butt home early.


Kerry doesn't have the backbone to make a decision without taking a poll to tell him what to say....thats no leader...

Bush has the balls to tell you what he wants to do and then do it.....thats more gumption than any democrat has had in a very long time.


Besides...look at the origin date of this thread it was from 11/19/2004.

Dayum! And all this time I was blaming it on Al Qaeda. Thanks for straightening me out!

That is the dumbest thing I ever heard. You are implying he CAUSED those events. Islamic terrorism has been around since the Jimmy Carter days.

Do you Bush-haters wake up every morning and just seeth until you can vent some nonense onto the internet?

The real point is that holding any U.S. official/administration responsible for the terrorist acts of Al Qaeda is not rational. Al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attack -- no one else.

Never mind the fact that 9/11 was the second attempt OBL made on the WTC. The First one was under Clintons term with the truck bomb...and they preffered to treat them like Jaywalkers....and for 8 years Clinton made NO effort to curb his actions...which let 9/11 happen. And Kerry would have done nothing differently.

Exactly -- never mind -- because it's unproductive. Productive is analyzing the event in the light of improving security, communications, etc. in order to minimize the chance of a repeat performance, which I believe has been done quite thoroughly. Once blame is cast about (and I'll take Richard Clarke to task for getting that ball rolling), the exercise is no longer productive.

Answer = yes.

I didn't drag this old post back from the dead......I created the thread back in 11/19/2004 Gottadiesel reserected it...

BHD, it's still old and still shi . . . however the quote I highlighted is still warm and fresh, if you want to describe excrement as warm or fresh.

Thats the DNC take becasue we know the libs NEVER do anything wrong....just ask one they will tell you.

Rational? Did you say rational? You're on the wrong web site.

Everybody agrees with that. ;)

.......wonder if I could put up a poll? :D