Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 11/19/2004 View Thu 11/18/2004 View Wed 11/17/2004 View Tue 11/16/2004 View Mon 11/15/2004 View Sun 11/14/2004 View Sat 11/13/2004
1
2004-11-19 International-UN-NGOs
UN staff to make historic vote of no confidence in Annan
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Frank G 2004-11-19 8:33:13 AM|| || Front Page|| [11135 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 
Mike S. - discuss and contrast - provide evidence and footnotes

I point out this passage:
Top UN spokesman Fred Eckhard announced on Tuesday that Nair had been exonerated by Annan “after a thorough review” by the UN’s senior official in charge of management, Catherine Bertini.

I don't have an opinion about the substance of the sexual-harrassment dispute, because I don't know enough about it.

As for the second-to-last paragraph, the totally gratuitous remark about Rwanda, I laugh aloud at all the Rantburgers here who claim now they would have supported a UN intervention in Rwanda back then. What a joke!
.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-19 9:00:36 AM||   2004-11-19 9:00:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I would have supported an UN, or any other, effort to stop the genocide in Rwanda. I would support an UN effort to stop the current genocide that the UN and your idol Kofi are ignoring. Obviously we don't have troops to send, but we can provide logistics and monetary support. Come clean Mikey, do you work for the UN? Your blind support of such an obviously corrupt organization (and person Kofi) stinks to high hell. You're either an UN employee or just a blind stupid person, either way...sucks to be you.
Posted by AllahHateMe 2004-11-19 9:10:41 AM||   2004-11-19 9:10:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I laugh aloud at all the Rantburgers here who claim now they would have supported a UN intervention in Rwanda back then

Dang Mike! That's twice you've called me or a family member a liar. Be nice, we're all friends here.
Posted by Shipman 2004-11-19 9:12:52 AM||   2004-11-19 9:12:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 
Re #2 (AllahHateMe) Come clean Mikey, do you work for the UN?

No. I have two jobs: 1) I translate documents for the US Department of Justice's Office of Special Investigations, and 2) I work in the administration (collections, unemployment claims, legal inquiries, etc.) of a company that provides home health care.

I would have supported an UN, or any other, effort to stop the genocide in Rwanda. I would support an UN effort to stop the current genocide that the UN and your idol Kofi are ignoring.

About how many combat troops do you think the USA should have sent as part of this effort? 10,000? 50,000? More? Compared to our force in, say, Iraq, how large should our deployment to Rwanda have been? (Same questions to Shipman).
.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-19 9:27:33 AM||   2004-11-19 9:27:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 There is not one time in my life that I have not supported peace keeping activities of the UN. Kofi was a failure as the head of peace keeping. The genocide in Rwanda was preventable. Kofi is responsible for it. He should have never been made Secretary General.

You must work for the UN or be blind Mike.
I know one thing you sure as hell are wrong about my position on UN peace keeping.
Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom  2004-11-19 9:32:33 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com]  2004-11-19 9:32:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Well you must be laughing pretty loud right now Mike cause I wanted the US to go into Rwanda to put an end to the genocide.
Posted by Damn_Proud_American  2004-11-19 9:32:57 AM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com]  2004-11-19 9:32:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Rantburgers here who claim now they would have supported a UN intervention in Rwanda back then. It was clear to anyone who followed the news it was happening in Rwanda and it was clear that the UN was substantially at fault. I would not have advocated the UN get (further) involved since they were clearly incapable of solving a genocide, only causing one.

Seeing as you asked.
Posted by phil_b 2004-11-19 9:35:13 AM||   2004-11-19 9:35:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Where ever UN peace keepers go it is more than likely they get there in planes provided by the US or UK. Their supplies come in the same way.
Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom  2004-11-19 9:37:54 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com]  2004-11-19 9:37:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 
Re #5 (Sock Puppet of Doom)
You'll enjoy this article, How Kofi Annan Enabled the Genocide in Rwanda, if you haven't read it already.
.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-19 9:40:16 AM||   2004-11-19 9:40:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 
Re #6, 7:
Everyone who claims now that they would have supported a UN military intervention in Rwanda back then are invited by me to answer my questions in #4.

By the way, many Rantburgers seem to be suffering from a delusion that most US citizens strongly oppose the UN. Somehow I am considered to be strange for defending the UN against silly, groundless accusations (e.g. Kofi and Kojo Annan profiting personally from Food-for-Oil).

Those Rantburgers are like the Kerry supporters who said, "Gee, everybody I talk with intends to vote for Kerry! He's gonna win by a landslide!!"
.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-19 9:46:07 AM||   2004-11-19 9:46:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 If the UN doesn't go into Rwanda, East Timor, or Darfur then what good is it? It sems to me that is exactly the purpose of the organization and that the Secretary General's job is to act as a leader in that function. Kofi has failed miserably in providing anything resembling leadership and now it's clear he isn't even an effective bureaucrat.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-19 9:47:45 AM||   2004-11-19 9:47:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Now this just piss' me off!Listen-up,MS,before I found the blog world I visited several discusion sites talking about terrorisiam,genocide,gun control(for good gun control use both hands).My position has always been those who commit terrorist acts/genocide need to be hunted down and killed,those who support terrorist acts should be hunted down and imprisoned or killed,those countrys that support terrorists/genocide need to be invaded and destroyed.Do not call me a liar agin!Take off your rose colored UN glasses,pry your lips off Kofi's ass.Wake-up and admit that the UN is a corrupt,useless din of criminals,terrorists & thier lovers(like you MS),thugs and despots.Take a hand full of sand and pound it up your ass...ahhh hell,you will probably ask for Kofi's help and still wouldn't get it right.Why don't you let me help?As my British friends would say"What a wanker".
Posted by raptor 2004-11-19 9:50:50 AM||   2004-11-19 9:50:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Compared to our force in, say, Iraq, how large should our deployment to Rwanda have been? (Same questions to Shipman).

I figure about 1 Brigade of the 101st AA, with Air Cargo assets hired under the food and feed act.
Posted by Shipman 2004-11-19 9:56:42 AM||   2004-11-19 9:56:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 raptor,

If you haven't seen it, I provided the link you asked for in the thread yesterday. Sorry for the delay.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-19 9:57:17 AM||   2004-11-19 9:57:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Now I answered your question sylvester... would you answer one of mine? What NGO do you volunteer for or are employed by?
Posted by Shipman 2004-11-19 9:59:59 AM||   2004-11-19 9:59:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 Sorry, Sylvester, no angrynist implied.
Posted by Shipman 2004-11-19 10:00:41 AM||   2004-11-19 10:00:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 speaking of echo chambers, Mikey - I think you'd be really disappointed how most of Amerikkka feels about the UN - we're awake and aware that the org is anti-american and corrupt to its' core - withdrawal from the diseased hive is just a matter of whether it dies on its' own first
Posted by Frank G  2004-11-19 10:03:25 AM||   2004-11-19 10:03:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 Turning the discussion back to the story, did anyone notice that the UN rank & file didn't care enough about the UN not doing it's job under Annan or Annan soaking up the graft, to raise any objections? But as soon as he did something internally they didn't like, they were all over him. One of the infallible earmarks of the disfunctional bureaucracy.
Posted by Crinens Unotch9551 2004-11-19 10:05:20 AM||   2004-11-19 10:05:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 (P)MS,

The U.N will never do anything about these genocides that are going on today, for two reasons.

One, the only thing the U.N. can do efficiently is to pass out food. The only reason they acheive success at passing out food is because 90 percent of handing out food are "air drops".

Two, these genocides involve the killing and extermination of Christians and converted Christians. These genocides are led foreign Arabs working with local IslamoPIGS, let's be realistic, to exterminate Christians. Since the U.N are in bed with the terrorists, the U.N. will always turn a blind eye to the killing of Christians.

P.S. I am not going to provide evidence or footnotes because frankly, you are just another irrelevant pencil pushing bureaucrat that is on the bottom of my "do not care" list.
Posted by Poison Reverse 2004-11-19 10:08:06 AM||   2004-11-19 10:08:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 #1 MS - yes, Anan did dismiss charges after a thorough investigation. What you conveniently fail to add is that he did so AGAINST THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS of that investigation.

Pfah.
Posted by too true 2004-11-19 12:03:20 PM||   2004-11-19 12:03:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Catholic Church, the mainstream media, CIA, the UN: another throughly rotten, arrogant institution gets its comeuppance.
Posted by lex 2004-11-19 12:11:14 PM||   2004-11-19 12:11:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Answering the question posed in #4:

One brigade of airborne infantry plus the necessary airlift and logistical tail. One brigade from the 82nd or 101st would have stopped the genocide in Rwanda.

I would have supported it enthusiastically back then, and I support enthusiastically any strong, real attempt to stop the genocide in the Sudan.

In 1945 the world said, "never again." Time to stop acting as if that was a lie.
Posted by Steve White  2004-11-19 12:24:51 PM||   2004-11-19 12:24:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Mikey says..."I translate documents for the US Department of Justice's Office of Special Investigations,"

what language...Mikey?
Posted by 2b 2004-11-19 12:34:36 PM||   2004-11-19 12:34:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Re #22: I did not, and still do not, support the use of ground troops in Darfur and the south of Sudan. I was willing to let the African Union send soldiers on the ground, and was willing that the United States perform the logistics role and conduct an air interdiction campaign. In support of that air campaign, I WOULD have supported the placement of special forces in the African Union command to call in air strikes.

Despite the magnificence of our troops, we simply do NOT have jungles in CONUS to train our troops, and I remain hesitant putting them into a situation they are not trained for.

At the same time, IMHO, I think attacking the Janaweed (sp?) is treating the symptoms. We really need to put the nuts of the leaders in Khartoum in a vise and crank away. In THOSE situations, I WOULD support US ground troops, since Fajullah shows we can handle urban warfare scenarios.
Posted by Ptah  2004-11-19 12:55:22 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]  2004-11-19 12:55:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 To answer your question in #4, seeing as how I am not an experienced military commander, I would support whatever troop levels the commanders on the ground requested to get the job done. Considering the mission would be completely different the assests needed, in terms of both types and numbers, would also be completely different. So it's a pretty stupid question, a question aimed at deflecting the actual topic at hand. But since you are the president of the Kofi Annan fan club, why does a UN intervention ALWAYS require vast amounts of US troops and capital? The UN is feckless, worthless and corrupt. The only thing that the UN can do without US support is bash the US. So spin Mikey spin. You, sir (and I use that term lightly), are a doofus. Thanks for playing, please try again.
Posted by AllahHateMe 2004-11-19 1:57:14 PM||   2004-11-19 1:57:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 I'm waiting Mike.
Posted by Shipman 2004-11-19 2:02:40 PM||   2004-11-19 2:02:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 *crickets*
Posted by Frank G  2004-11-19 2:07:11 PM||   2004-11-19 2:07:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 "UN staff to make historic vote of no confidence in Annan"

What is going on? I thought this for sure would be Scrappleface. There is a God!
Posted by BA  2004-11-19 2:07:56 PM||   2004-11-19 2:07:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Best November ever.
Posted by lex 2004-11-19 2:23:36 PM||   2004-11-19 2:23:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Mike, you work for the DOJ and the people you know like the UN?

Are you on the East Coast???

They can't even handle Kosovo.
Posted by anonymous2u 2004-11-19 3:17:37 PM||   2004-11-19 3:17:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Make it a vote of no confidence for the entire U.N. and I'm in.
Posted by Barbara Skolaut  2004-11-19 3:34:58 PM||   2004-11-19 3:34:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 So what if a vote of no conifidance is passed. The UN couldn't even keep the ambassadors and their staff from looting their own cafeteria a couple of years ago, what's this meaningless employee vote going to do?
Posted by Laurence of the Rats  2004-11-19 3:35:02 PM|| [http://www.punictreachery.com/]  2004-11-19 3:35:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 I'll be back at sixish to check my great big box 'o links.
Posted by Shipman 2004-11-19 3:59:47 PM||   2004-11-19 3:59:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 5000 well armed troops with the order to shoot anyone wielding a machete would have prevented the Rwandan genocide.
Posted by True German Ally 2004-11-19 4:05:09 PM||   2004-11-19 4:05:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 "small children playing in the afterglow"
Posted by Shipman 2004-11-19 5:18:16 PM||   2004-11-19 5:18:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 
Re #15 (Shipman): Now I answered your question sylvester... would you answer one of mine? What NGO do you volunteer for or are employed by?

None. I stated my employment in #4. I'm not a volunteer in an NGO.
.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-19 11:21:16 PM||   2004-11-19 11:21:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 
Re #19 (Poison Reverse): The U.N will never do anything about these genocides that are going on today, for two reasons.

A major reasons is that the members do not want to provide military forces for UN interventions to stop genocides.

Anothre major reason is that several members have the power to veto military interventions.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-19 11:23:54 PM||   2004-11-19 11:23:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 but mikey - what language do you translate?
Posted by 2b 2004-11-19 11:24:45 PM||   2004-11-19 11:24:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 
Re #20 (too true): Anan did dismiss charges after a thorough investigation. What you conveniently fail to add is that he did so AGAINST THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS of that investigation.

Maybe you're right about that. I haven't studied the matter. As I said, I don't know have an opinion about the substance of the sexual-harrassment dispute. I don't defend everything Kofi Annan might have done.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-19 11:27:09 PM||   2004-11-19 11:27:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 
Re #23 (2b): what language...Mikey?

I translate documents into English from German, Russian, Polish, and Ukrainian.
.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-19 11:29:20 PM||   2004-11-19 11:29:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 ooooh...even Mike S. is turning against Anan. heh, heh. Since Mike always parrots the accepted liberal point of view, that does not bode well for Mr. Anan.
Posted by 2b 2004-11-19 11:29:49 PM||   2004-11-19 11:29:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 Which of the slavic languages did you learn first? Were the others easy to learn after you mastered the first one?
Posted by lex 2004-11-19 11:30:44 PM||   2004-11-19 11:30:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 
Re #42 (lex)
I started teaching myself Russian as a hobby when I was in junior high. When I was in college I majored in Russian. To get a Masters Degree I had to study 1) either German or French and 2) a second Slavic language. I studied German and Czech. Polish is very similar to Czech, so I learned it easily. Basically if you can read Polish and Russian, you can read Ukrainian fairly well.

I served in the USAF from 1978 to 1992, serving the entire time in Intelligence. I was based in Munich, Germany, from 1980 to 1984. My job during that period was to interview defectors and immigrants and to write intelligence reports.

After I left the USAF in 1992 I worked full-time as a translater (as a subcontractor, not as a staff employee) for the Department of Justice's Office of Special Investigations, translating documents for investigations and prosections of people who had collaborated with the Nazis during World War Two. After the 9/11 attacks the funding for that program fell, so since then I have translated only half-time and have worked half-time for a company that provides home health care. About 90% of the company's administration are immigrants from the Soviet Union. I was hired primarily for my ability to write business correspondence in native English.

In 1995, I married an immigrant from Lithuania. I don't speak Lithuanian, but she speaks Russian and we usually speak Russian together. I should learn Lithuanian, because we have lots of Lithuanians in our home all the time and because we visit Lithuania often, but I don't think I have the energy any more to learn another language. Besides, all the Lithuanians I know speak Russian, and most of them speak English too.
.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-19 11:47:05 PM||   2004-11-19 11:47:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 MS - an admirable resume of which you should be proud - you won't see me disparage that. We have issues over other topics. Nite all
Posted by Frank G  2004-11-19 11:56:35 PM||   2004-11-19 11:56:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 
To those of you who above proposed concrete military forces, I exonerate you from my criticism on that point. I'm sure, though, that you will join me in remembering that the Clinton Administration did not want to involve itself in any military intervention in Rwanda. Neither did the Republicans at that time. And US Department of Defense would have resisted too.

And the same goes for all the other countries outside of Africa. The UN had no military forces available (and keep in mind that the genocide developed very quickly) except for the tiny observer force in the country. Kofi Annan was correct, I think, in his reluctance to deploy that tiny force to fight the Hutus.

If Kofi Annan had deployed that force, and if the predictable fiasco had occurred, then the very same Rantburgers who now criticize him for not deploying the force would instead be criticizing him for deploying them.

Which option is easier?:
1) To propose and implement a politically and militarily feasible operation to stop the genocide in Rwanda.
2) To blame everything on one man, Kofi Annan.

We all know what's easier.
.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-19 11:58:04 PM||   2004-11-19 11:58:04 PM|| Front Page Top

17:55 Josh
17:55 Josh
17:55 Josh
17:55 Josh
17:55 Josh
17:53 Josh
17:53 Josh
17:53 Josh
17:53 Josh
17:53 Josh
17:52 Josh
17:51 Josh
23:58 Mike Sylwester
23:56 Frank G
23:54 Frank G
23:47 Mike Sylwester
23:43 Mark Espinola
23:42 Steve White
23:40 lex
23:35 True German Ally
23:31 Barbara Skolaut
23:30 lex
23:29 2b
23:29 Mike Sylwester









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com