Help from the United Nations

[Tigermike 3,715]

John Kerry the democrat candidate for President seems to think the US should abdicate the war on terrorism to the United Nations. I wonder if he is aware that there are over 100 nations that decline to pursue terrorists?

108 nations decline to pursue terrorists

By Betsy Pisik

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

    NEW YORK — A U.N. monitoring committee complained yesterday that 108 nations have failed to file required reports on their actions in the war against terrorism, such as freezing assets and reporting the names of suspected terrorists.

    Frustrated committee members said they are considering asking for a stronger Security Council resolution with "more teeth" to force compliance from member states.

    The reports are required under Security Council resolutions passed since 2001, which imposed sanctions first on the Taliban and later on al Qaeda and the 30 to 40 terrorist groups thought to be affiliated with them.

    Governments are required to enumerate steps that they have taken to make banking records more transparent, identify terrorist suspects and halt shipments of weapons and potentially dangerous chemicals.

    Michael Chandler, chairman of the monitoring group, said he would not make excuses for nations that have been slow to file the comprehensive reports, which were due by the end of October.

    Among the countries that have not complied are several where the al Qaeda terror network is thought to be active, including Afghanistan, Egypt, Indonesia, Kenya and Sudan.

    "There is a stigma, I think, as though countries are reluctant to admit there is al Qaeda activity or connections inside their borders," Mr. Chandler said, suggesting that such admissions would scare away tourism and investment.

    "We were surprised to see in some of these [reports] not as much information about the presence of al Qaeda as we would have expected."

    Chilean Ambassador Heraldo Munoz, chairman of the United Nations' al Qaeda sanctions committee, said, "I'm still hopeful we'll have more cooperation" by the end of the year.

    "I think we'll have to cooperate on a stronger resolution, give more teeth to the sanctions," he added.

    Those sanctions imposed by the U.N. resolutions call for all member countries to freeze the assets, confiscate the properties and businesses, and ban travel by suspected terrorists.

    The resolutions also demand that governments shut down charities that claim to collect money for relief and investment for the Islamic poor, but in fact subsidize violent efforts.

    The United States, which has met most of its reporting requirements, yesterday questioned the need for a stronger counterterrorism resolution.

    "What [Mr. Munoz] means to say is that member states are not complying with the resolution, and we say, 'Hear, hear,'" said Richard Grenell, spokesman for U.N. Ambassador John D. Negroponte. "The resolution is just fine."

    Besides criticizing recalcitrant countries, the monitoring committee warned in its report that the al Qaeda ideology "has continued to spread, raising the specter of further terrorist attacks and further threats to international peace and security."

    The authors say al Qaeda's influence is seen in places removed from the caves of Afghanistan. They warned that the Islamic fundamentalist message is infusing local and regional groups with encouragement, training, cash and possibly even weapons.

    Secessionist or terrorist groups thought to have al Qaeda connections include Jemaah Islamiyah in Singapore, Indonesia and Thailand, and Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines and possibly the Ba'athists in Iraq, the report said.

    Al Qaeda's influence "has now become more diffuse, more widespread," Mr. Chandler said.

    "What's going on in Asia indicates that they have the ability of circumventing the sanctions we have applied," Mr. Munoz said. "We are worried about the expansion of al Qaeda not only to Asia but to other theaters. In that sense, they have become truly a global terrorist organization."

    One place for serious concern is postwar Iraq which, the report finds, "has become a fertile ground for al Qaeda" by offering targets such as the coalition troops.

    The committee — comprising five experts in various disciplines — sees al Qaeda's hand in the separate attacks on the U.N. and Red Cross headquarters buildings in Baghdad, but Mr. Chandler said they have little evidence beyond what has been reported.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031201-111537-6088r.htm

[Tiger Al 0]

It just really sticks in your craw that the UN didn't buy into the Bush/Powell song and dance, doesn't it? Or, were they selling snakeoil?

[Tigermike 3,715]

It just really sticks in your craw that the UN didn't buy into the Bush/Powell song and dance, doesn't it? Or, were they selling snakeoil?

No Al it sticks in my craw that all those people in NY & Washington D.C. & Pennsylvania died and all those countries don't care to wipe out world wide terrorism. It also sticks in my craw that you democrats are so myopic that you either can't see what is going on in the world or that you are so brainwashed by your party that you don't care about stopping terrorism. It also sticks in my craw the democrats are attempting to denegate the war on terrorism. You should feel so proud of your party and yourself Al!

All you people have is I HATE BUSH. I HATE BUSH. I HATE BUSH.

[Tiger Al 0]

The UN did nothing to thwart our war in Afghanistan, Tigermike. Did they?

[Tigermike 3,715]

Stick to the subject of the article Al!

[Tiger Al 0]

You know, this may seem a little overly simplistic, but wouldn't we win the war on terrorism a lot faster if we addressed the root of the problem which, I believe, is the struggle between Israel and Palestine? Wouldn't that make more sense. Has Bush even addressed that problem at all? We heard about his "Roadmap to Peace" but, has he really begun to travel those roads to find peace?

[Tigermike 3,715]

The UN did nothing to thwart our war in Afghanistan, Tigermike. Did they?

They couldn't could they Al?

[Tigermike 3,715]

You know, this may seem a little overly simplistic, but wouldn't we win the war on terrorism a lot faster if we addressed the root of the problem which, I believe, is the struggle between Israel and Palestine? Wouldn't that make more sense. Has Bush even addressed that problem at all? We heard about his "Roadmap to Peace" but, has he really begun to travel those roads to find peace?

I would think the war in Afghanistan and Iraq has already started inroads in that area. Both Libya and Iran have changed their stance and postures recently haven't they?

this may seem a little overly simplistic, but wouldn't we win the war on terrorism if we addressed the root of the problem which, I believe, is the struggle between Israel and Palestine?

OK let's talk about Israel and the Palestinian's. It is the Arab world's objective to completely destroy Israel. The Arab world in general - particularly Islamic fundamentalists are not willing to allow Israel to live in peace. I realize that is a generalization but on the whole in general it is a true statement.

Let's start with a theoretical question. It is my belief that if the Israelis were to tell the Palestinian's and the rest of the Arab world that they could have all lands now owned/occupied by the Israelis. Except one square block on which the Israelis built the largest apartment complex in the world to house their people. Do you think the Palestinian's and the rest of the Arab world would let them live in peace? Or would there be car bombs surrounding the building as soon as it were opened? Or even while under construction?

I certainly don't know what the answer is in the Middle East, but President Bush has that region looking at a different route and different options. Go back Al and take your democrat colored glasses off and read the article. Read what the professor is saying. http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5233

In my mind, if the Arabs were fighting for their freedom, I could support them. But they are not, they are waging war against Israel and the entire world. Not because they want freedom but because they want to destroy Israel. For that reason alone I would support Israel against them and the United States against them as well. They are not fighting for freedom, they are fighting to destroy the world.

[DKW 86 7,899]

Al, Ishmael and Isaac have been fighting over Canaan for thousands of years. They are not about to stop. ANyone thinking that there is a negotiated peace laying somewhere around Jerusalem is totally oblivious to history.

Those that do not know history are bound to repeat it.

[channonc 466]

Mike and David-

I agree with you both about the Israel/Palestine situation. I don't think there will ever be peace in that part of the world. Hate is strung so far back that I don't even think both sides understand why they hate each other. President Clinton came the closest to a peace agreement b/w the 2 sides and even he failed. I support a Palastinian nation with recognized borders and their own government, but I don't think that would even solve it all.

As far as the war on terror, it reminds me a lot of the war on drugs. In theory, everyone is behind it, but in practice, will we really win? It seems like a battle worth waging, but one I don't think we will ever really win. I think the American people need to realize that this "War on Terror" thing really is going to be going on for decades in some form or fashion. I just accept that it is the world we live in today.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

It just really sticks in your craw that the UN didn't buy into the Bush/Powell song and dance, doesn't it? Or, were they selling snakeoil?

first off, didn't the UN 'buy that snake oil'? i never thought the issue was the evilness of iraq/saddam, but the means by which to address it that was the issue. if the UN didn't think there were WMDs there in the first place, why have a team there searching for them?

2ndly, it doesn't bother me at all that we acted "unilaterally" (with the aid of britain, and dozens of other countries) against the wishes of france & german & russia & whomever.

a similar question could be asked of the dem libs, however:

It just really sticks in your craw that the US didn't wholly abdicate to the UN, doesn't it?

if you look a little deeper into this issue, it may boil down to whether you believe the US needs to ask for permission from the UN to do what it thinks is right.

i make that statement in the general (though it certainly applies to this specific case). its perfectly 'ok' to disagree w/ a decision the country makes (that's one of the freedoms we have and love).

a totally different issue is whether one believes we need to relinquish our autonomy/sovereignty (or to what degree we need to) to another organization.

AND, we're not some small country here that doesn't hold sway. we are the most powerful nation on earth. that counts for something, whether we like it or not.

in short, i guess i'm trying to say that i don't mind being the US...it beats being anything else in the world.

[DKW 86 7,899]

Mike and David-

I agree with you both about the Israel/Palestine situation. I don't think there will ever be peace in that part of the world. Hate is strung so far back that I don't even think both sides understand why they hate each other. President Clinton came the closest to a peace agreement b/w the 2 sides and even he failed. I support a Palastinian nation with recognized borders and their own government, but I don't think that would even solve it all.

As far as the war on terror, it reminds me a lot of the war on drugs. In theory, everyone is behind it, but in practice, will we really win? It seems like a battle worth waging, but one I don't think we will ever really win. I think the American people need to realize that this "War on Terror" thing really is going to be going on for decades in some form or fashion. I just accept that it is the world we live in today.

Very good post. If it would stop the bloodshed, I would support a Pal. State. I dont see it working tho.