+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 02/23/2018 01:20 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  1.416 Visits   4 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
05/23/2007 09:24 PM ID: 62636 Permalink   

UN Traded in Gold and Weapons with Militia: BBC


The BBC has found that officers for the United Nations traded illegally in gold and weaponry with Congolese militia. The report stated that investigators from the UN were harassed and intimidated when trying to report on the issue.

The initial allegations surfaced last year, and the UN Mission in Congo said that it was aware of the accusations of trafficking between 2004 and 2005. According to UN spokesperson Michele Montas said two investigations were being held.

The BBC report stated: "Repeatedly he saw militia who had been disarmed one day, but the next day would become rearmed again. The information he could obtain was always the same, that it would be the Pakistani battalion giving arms back..."

    WebReporter: NuttyPrat Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
IM SHOCKED!! no one in the UN is a crook. Those dumb fools can't keep there noses cleaned for a year?
  by: shoezacks   05/23/2007 10:59 PM     
The problem was with one specific battalion of Pakistani troops. Not the whole of the UN, although I'm sure some people will try to paint the whole of the UN as bad from this incident. Although I have to say that trying to bury the report was very foolish.
  by: StarShadow     05/24/2007 12:15 AM     
Everywhere you look these days.
  by: Maxx20     05/24/2007 10:24 AM     
people think the UN is corrupt already, not because of this one little incident.

I'm not a fan of Bush, but I am glad he isn't a puppet for them.
  by: Classy   05/24/2007 05:00 PM     
KInda like the US soldiers? A few bad soldiers don't represent the entire corp.
Just tired of people (maybe not you inparticular) bashing the US troops, but praising the work that the UN does.
  by: FreedonSupporter     05/24/2007 05:53 PM     
I generally try to be specific in my 'bashing', generalizations tend to miss their mark by a wide margin. The US troops, for the most part, are just following orders. It's the Administration and the people giving those orders I disagree with. Also, the term 'bashing' is really being thrown around a lot and mostly isn't accurate. Criticism, especially when about specific issues and in an informed manner, does not equate to bashing.
  by: StarShadow     05/25/2007 05:25 AM     
I don't remember anybody here bashing U.S. troops unless they were involved in/accused of committing war crimes ...
  by: lĀ“anglais     05/25/2007 05:32 AM     
If you know your history a little, you'd know how the UN has prevented further world wars by offering a common platform for all countries to voice their stances from.

It was formed directly after WWII in 1945.

World War I is a perfect example of Pre UN politics. It was a war based upon a grab bag mix of alliances. It was caused by the assassination of a single man. Only two countries wanted war, Austria and Serbia. By mixed alliances 8 other countries where pulled in, including us(US).

If the UN been formed previously to WWI, the this war campaign would have been isolated to a far smaller scale then a full blown World War. The issue would have been addressed by a world wide panel of representatives and a resolution would have been drawn up.
Simple put, it brought down the previous existing barriers of international relation communication. Which is essential part to avoiding escalation by mis-communication.

That was the intent of its formation and it has successfully performed to it's purpose.

The UN isn't perfect, but it's proven to prevent wars based upon miscommunication between nations of differing political agenda's.

I would suggest you understand a little about the history of something before you rant off of our current administrations talking points.

If there is a WW III, it will happen by a nation that defies the framework of the UN.

At this particular moment in time the first runner up for that prize will be us, the US is a member, but this administration doesn't put much stock into diplomacy rather then military action.

For the past 7 years our foreign relations have taken a spiraling dive b/c of the lack of communication and more then enough self righteous justification to go around.

If it ain't agree'n with bush and them'en's it ain't gonna get too much of bushes attention span... Which there isn't a whole lot to go around the way it is...

I am eternally grateful that a prez can only serve 2 terms. This current one seems to be pushing us closer and closer to WWIII... and justifying it through the self righteous .

  by: ukcn001XYZ   05/25/2007 12:57 PM     
It's difficult not to be critical of a war justified on fighting terror abroad to save American lives from terrorist attack when quite the direct opposite is happening.

The soldiers fighting in Iraq are Americans too. Their lives also count. We have lost far more soldiers in action in Iraq than by any terrorist action on US soil.

We haven't prevented any more deaths by going on the offensive, more have been caused than prevented. The deaths on the other side have been staggering, not just for the enemy but Iraq civilians.

This is one of the many counter arguments to one of the administrations major talking points to justify this war.
  by: ukcn001XYZ   05/25/2007 01:05 PM     
  Oh Classy  
"I'm not a fan of Bush, but I am glad he isn't a puppet for them."
Now this is classic. (Kinko taking off the blinder)

I didn't know that, you could actually stick a finger in one ear and it would come out the other! Nice trick.!

No fan. Pffffff
  by: kinko     05/25/2007 01:55 PM     
Like The Korean war was stopped by the UN?
Or Vietnam?

The first world war would not have been stopped by a UN.
If Germany didnt want the war, why was it planning for it a decade in advance?

The reason there wasnt been a world war since, is there havent been enough major powers for one to occur.

The UN doesnt work.
Violence happens because one side wants something the other has and can use violence to take it.
Be it someone wanting to have sex with someone and raping them.
Or Wilhelm II wanting France and Spain.

Either one side submits to other, or they fight it out.
  by: Gogevandire   05/29/2007 10:11 AM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: