[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement:
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 13:54:04 05/05/03 Mon
Author: William
Author Host/IP: cache-rl02.proxy.aol.com / 152.163.189.98
Subject: Hello, JL! Thank you for the story. I have the Time.com story which covered this incident from a few days ago. For those who are interested, click here, and you will also have access to the Time.com link itself as well as the article, including some of my own comments or quips about the UN.
In reply to:
JL
's message, "Unreal." on 09:07:38 05/04/03 Sun
The following comment is referring to an article which follows below.
We all know that the United Nations is: - as useful and pleasant as a dog with rabies
- as desirable and useful as fleas
- as helpful as a welfare recipient when you want work done
- as funny as a flood in a cool-aid factory or a screen door in a submarine.
We also know that looting done in Iraq was the responsibility of, and to be blamed on, the United States, as is global warming, HIV/AIDS, Christianity, Judaism, Israel, Jews, peace and freedom, and God and apple pie.
Now you can add the looting of the United Nations restaurants to the list of "Things to blame on the United States".
Where was the United States' military? Could the United States not have at least positioned some tanks and a few US Marines or Special Forces armed with rifles, to protect the restaurants in the UN from looting ... by the likes of UN personnel, including diplomats themselves?
I am waiting to hear the uproar from the Left and the hate America crowd when they get wind of this.
Stub your toe? Blame "America". Islamofascists whipping or stoning another pregnant single woman who was raped? Blame America. Your people are starving because a despot and his cronies are skimming money off the top and living like kings while starving his people? Blame America. People are being oppressed and abused? Blame America. America comes to help those who are being oppressed and abused? Blame America ... for something. And if nothing materializes, invent something. If something minor develops, magnify it, make it sound and appear to be worse than it is and run with it and ... blame America.
Now that the UN's own staff, including international diplomats, are involved in looting at the UN itself, where are the screams of righteous indignation at US negligence for allowing this to happen from those who blame the United States or America for everything?
By the way, I saw no mention of the police called, charges brought forth, or arrests made. Do you think anyone thought to call the police? If the police were called, do you think anyone would have been arrested? Do you think those UN diplomats and other UN staff who were guilty of looting would have, or already have, declared "Diplomatic Immunity"?
William
Food Fight
When the Food Workers Union stages an impromptu walkout at the U.N., the diplomats start looting for lunch and booze
By Stewart Stogel/U.N. Saturday, May. 03, 2003 Time.com
Hunger pains can apparently turn even the most upstanding diplomat into a looter. At noon on Friday, food workers at the U.N. headquarters walked off their jobs, calling a wildcat strike. The result: none of the U.N.'s five restaurants and bars was staffed. The walkout left thousands of U.N. employees scrounging for lunch ? eventually, the masses stripped the cafeterias of everything, including the silverware.
The food workers staged a one-day show of muscle after they learned that they would not be reimbursed for vacation pay due to a contract shift that took place in March. For the past 17 years the U.N. has been under contract to Restaurant Associates Inc. (RA). In March, RA lost the contract to Aramark Corporation, the largest U.S. food services company. According to Aramark executives who spoke to TIME, RA informed the food workers on Friday morning that it would only cover vacation pay that was issued before May 2nd, the last day of RA's U.N. contract. Any vacation pay due after May 2nd would need to be paid by Aramark.
But Aramark informed the Union it would only pay for time worked for their company and nothing previous with RA. Aramark told the union that whether or not vacation paychecks were to be issued before or after May 2nd the work in question was performed when RA held the U.N. contract.
That was enough to set the food workers walking during the height of Friday's lunch hour. After that, what ensued was nothing short of Baghdad style chaos.
Kofi Annan, who had a private lunch previously scheduled with the members of the Security Council in the Delegates Dining Room, found they were only served the main course. After that, they were on their own ? no desserts, no cleanup, no coffee for Kofi. And the service was no better for anyone else at the U.N. But as tensions grew and stomachs growled, a high-ranking U.N. official boldly ordered that all the cafeterias open their doors for business even without staff. The restaurants had been locked shut by security until about 1:00 pm when the doors flung open.
The decision to make the cafeterias into "no pay zones" spread through the 40-acre complex like wildfire. Soon, the hungry patrons came running. "It was chaos, wild, something out of a war scene," said one Aramark executive who was present. "They took everything, even the silverware," she said. Another witness from U.N. security said the cafeteria was "stripped bare." And another told TIME that the cafeteria raid was "unbelievable, crowds of people just taking everything in sight; they stripped the place bare." And yet another astonished witness said that "chickens, turkeys, souffles, casseroles all went out the door (unpaid)."
The mob then moved on to the Viennese Café, a popular snack bar in the U.N.'s conference room facility. It was also stripped bare. The takers included some well-known diplomats who finished off the raid with free drinks at the lounge for delegates. When asked how much liquor was lifted from the U.N. bar, one U.S. diplomat responded: "I stopped counting the bottles." He then excused himself and headed towards the men's room.
An Aramark executive estimated the food "removed" from the U.N.'s main cafeteria at between $7,000 and $9,000 not including the staff restaurant, the Viennese Café or the Delegate's Bar. The value of the missing silverware has yet to be estimated.
Come Monday, the workers should be back at their stations. The dispute has been temporarily resolved with the Union agreeing that the vacation pay remains RA's responsibility. The Union also wasn't willing to risk Aramark's only option of replacing all the workers.
"I hope we have large crowds rushing to come to lunch on Monday," an Aramark executive said. "But this time we expect them to pay for what they take."
Does anyone still want to trust the UN?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Replies:
[> [>
It really is pathetic, this demonising of the UN because the Security Council wouldn't support a resolution to go to war with Iraq. Why? Because they didn't believe the evidence on WMD's. That's hardly surprising, since weapons that according to Blair were "45 minutes from being launched", still haven't been found after all this time (and there are no weapons inspectors to blame now). The UN may be "scum", but at least they're not gullible. -- Chris Henry, 04:40:38 05/06/03 Tue (cache9-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.20)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
What is pathetic is your weak and dishonest protests. It is not because the so-called Security council did not believe in the WMDs, Chris, and I am almost surprised that you are that dishonest to even try to claim that here. The UN Security council voted 15 - 0, unanimously, in support of UN Resolution 1441, the 18th resolution in 12 years, all 17 prior resolutions flagrantly violated by Saddam. Afterwards some back tracked and did not wish to follow through and support action against Iraq's leadership when they revealed their continued violations. -- William, 06:06:39 05/06/03 Tue (cache-rl02.proxy.aol.com/152.163.189.98)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
I am unclear why you are accusing me of dishonesty. Is it my assertion that the UN is being demonised because it wouldn't pass the second resolution? Is it my assertion that it wouldn't pass because they didn't buy the WMD allegation? Or is it something else? In other words, what "It" are you referring to? Please clarify. -- Chris Henry, 07:27:12 05/06/03 Tue (cache1-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.11)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Chris, I think this statement is dishonest: "It really is pathetic, this demonising of the UN because the Security Council wouldn't support a resolution to go to war with Iraq. Why? Because they didn't believe the evidence on WMD's." The UN security council did believe that Iraq had/has WMDs. They showed this belief by voting 15 - 0 in support of resolution 1441. You know that all of them believe it, even France, Germany, Russia, China, Syria, and others all believe/d that Iraq did have WMDs. -- William, 15:19:57 05/06/03 Tue (cache-dl03.proxy.aol.com/205.188.209.39)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
You are saying that they opposed the US because the did not believe Iraq had WMDs. That is dishonest. Also, it has been revealed that Russia, France, China, and others, were profiting, illegally also, by dealing with Iraq. The UN is gullible. They believed that more sanctions and more inspections would resolve this issue. They were wrong! -- William, 15:24:08 05/06/03 Tue (cache-dl03.proxy.aol.com/205.188.209.39)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Now I understand. However I don't have direct access to UN ambassadors. Therefore what I'm putting forward is an opinion. I'm not putting it forward as a fact, therefore the question of honesty or dishonesty does not arise. An opinion is what I sincerely believe, but if I'm proved to be wrong, that doesn't make me a dishonest, just mistaken. The same applies to your opinions, I think they're wrong, but I'm not calling you dishonest. I don't think it's an appropriate word for a civilised discussion group. -- Chris Henry, 09:13:07 05/07/03 Wed (cache7-1.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.17)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Many of us here have wanted the U.N. to be expelled for over 20 years. This new crew with Annan at the helm only serves to intensify our belief. It has little to do with recent events. They are merely more of the same. The only difference is that the U.S. public is starting to pay attention. France should have just voted and shut up, but they didn't realize so many were paying attention. -- SurveyGuy, 12:08:19 05/08/03 Thu (pcp01422563pcs.lndsd201.pa.comcast.net/68.81.153.209)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Among those were countries or states which were already involved in deceitful acts with Saddam. This is what has come to light. The French, Chinese, Russian, Syrians, and others have been complicit in supporting Saddam and contributing to the abuse of the Iraqi people, all while making like they were peace makers. Their hypocrisy has been revealed but you choose to ignore these and live in a fantasy land. -- William, 06:07:48 05/06/03 Tue (cache-rl02.proxy.aol.com/152.163.189.98)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Let's talk about support for Saddam Hussein. In a Fantasy Land, long ago, in 1983 and 1984, Iran was our enemy. Iran was fighting Iraq. Therefore Iraq was our friend. Rumsfeld went to Baghdad twice to meet our new friend the President of Iraq, and this led to the resumption of diplomatic relations. -- Chris Henry, 07:46:37 05/06/03 Tue (cache9-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.20)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
At the same time, the UN (no less) was reporting Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran. Our Ambassador at the time to the UN said "“We think that the use of chemical weapons is a very serious matter. We've made that clear in general and particular.” Tut, tut, boys will be boys. The US did not issue a call to arms - how could it, when Rumsfeld was glad-handing it with the Butcher of Baghdad. How about that for hypocrisy? -- Chris Henry, 07:48:00 05/06/03 Tue (cache10-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.29)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Yes, the UN, as it has been recently, has been scum, or worse. The nations who supported Iraq's sadistic leader and demonized the United States, is more useless as road kill, and they are gullible. How do you think they went along with Saddam, France, Germany, et al? How do you think that they actually believed that UN Inspectors would be of any use in Iraq? They were so gullible that they actually believed that Iraq would comply with UN Inspectors after he did not for 12 years and he did not comply this time either. -- William, 06:13:28 05/06/03 Tue (cache-rl02.proxy.aol.com/152.163.189.98)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Iraq said they didn't have any weapons, and the inspectors didn't find any. Does that make them useless? Only if the weapons are there, hidden. Now the coalition forces are there, but they haven't found any either. So are they equally useless? Maybe they will find some, but time is running out. Don't expect the "scum" nations to keep quiet when the so-called Iraqi WMD accusation turn out to be the Lie of the Century. -- Chris Henry, 07:59:57 05/06/03 Tue (cache8-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.27)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Chris, how can you possibly claim "... but time is running out ... " (for finding WMDs)? It has been 12 years. Then several months more after resolution 1441. With the war people were screaming that it is taking too long and we are getting bogged down, things are not going well, after only ONE WEEK!!!! The US and coalition forces took Iraq in three weeks and people were impatient and crying "Quagmire" after only a week! What impatience!Patience, Chris! I know you want the US to fail but be patient! -- William, 16:21:41 05/06/03 Tue (cache-dl03.proxy.aol.com/205.188.209.39)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I'm prepared to wait until the end of the year. I don't wat the US to fail, it will be a matter of great personal shame if my country is shown to have misled the world. However the world will not wait forever, time is definitely running out. -- Chris Henry, 02:55:27 05/07/03 Wed (cache10-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.29)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I disagree. The world WILL wait forever. What will they do -- pass a resolution?! They are already on record as not enforcing anything. By "the world" you refer to the UN, I assume. Look how long they waited for Saddam to comply with so many resolutions that they all voted for. They will whine and complain to be sure, but only to voice anti-US sentiments. Kick them ALL out of NY. Put the real estate to better use. -- SurveyGuy (anti-UN for decades. Waiting for them to show some integrity.), 18:44:28 05/08/03 Thu (pcp01422563pcs.lndsd201.pa.comcast.net/68.81.153.209)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
So this compartmentalized vehicle just found in northern Iraq was for ice cream? Inspectors had 6 months. The Unfits wanted to give them 6 MORE months. You are bellyaching because the U.S. military (whose job is NOT to search for WMD's) has not found them in 6 weeks? Your statements are ludicrous. Nothing personal. -- JL, 20:25:13 05/06/03 Tue (pcp01376707pcs.selrsv01.pa.comcast.net/68.80.69.241)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
If it's not the job of the Coalition military to look for WMD's, given that they are the sole power in that country, then I am curious whom you expect to do it. Presumably not the UN. Your statements are baffling. Nothing personal. -- Chris Henry, 03:05:24 05/07/03 Wed (cache9-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.20)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
We have sent/are sending our own teams in to do the dirty work. Some of them are military, but others are experts in their particular fields. And Guess What??? Some of them are even Iraqis and Iraqi ex-pats. It is the 'job' of our miltary to protect them and assist them if possible, not to BE them. -- JL, 19:24:02 05/08/03 Thu (pcp01376707pcs.selrsv01.pa.comcast.net/68.80.69.241)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
So if this vehicle had been used to manufacture weapons, wouldn't you expect these weapons to have been issued to some of the Iraqi forces, and even used on occasion, and therefore discovered as their positions were overrun? What more urgent need would there be than to use them against a Western invasion? And so if none were found, isn't there just the smallest possibility that they don't actually exist? -- Chris Henry, 05:24:33 05/08/03 Thu (cache1-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.11)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
...and please don't tell me it was because of the threat of retaliation. That would only explain why they were not used, but not why they were not issued to units and stockpiled. -- Chris Henry, 05:26:53 05/08/03 Thu (cache8-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.27)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
My guess would be that they were so busy hiding them, focussing on the UN inspectors, there was no time to deploy and train their troops in the use. Given where we found other items, in schools, drums weighted down in the Euphates and underground, I expect some nasty stuff to be uncovered. The accessories that have been found seem to indicate the existence. -- SurveyGuy (I predict it will take about 6 months to uncover some hidden WNDs), 09:31:07 05/09/03 Fri (pcp01422563pcs.lndsd201.pa.comcast.net/68.81.153.209)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
The uselessness of the Unfit Nothings has been exercised countless times. The 'Security Council' (sic) position on our action in Iraq was but a qualifier. Think not that this started with their laming post 1441. -- JL, 20:14:41 05/06/03 Tue (pcp01376707pcs.selrsv01.pa.comcast.net/68.80.69.241)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
