Comments on: The Yellowcake-for-Food Program

By: Grumpy Old Man

Grumpy Old Man — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:32:23 +0000

The UN as a whole is a cartel of tyrants, to be sure.

The IAEA, however, seems to have been right about Saddam’s nukes. How can we be so certain they are wrong about Ali Khamenei’s?

By: dclydew

dclydew — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:23:15 +0000

1. Ah the UN, the perfect example of why our founding fathers warned against encumbering treaties with other nations. America should act in America’s best interest, not be forced to act in the interests of other nations to their own detrement.

2. As far as I know there is not yet proof that Iran has actually done anything. As such, the intel report should either have included evidence (which would shut the UN up) or have said “suspected”, “reason to believe” or some similar statement. I continue to be concerned that many things happening in Washington at this point rely more on political statements than fact… see Global Warming, Ethanol, Intelligent Design, Terri Schivo, the confusion over Iraq and AQ, the confusion over Iraq and WMD’s… the list goes on and on. (Note this is not a statement against the administration, but against the lack of vetting statements before they are made public, the lack of relying on Good Science, instead of pseudo-science in service of political potency… both parties seem equally guilty).

By: Knucklehead

Knucklehead — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:24:10 +0000

The UN has demonstrated that the best of them are feckless bureaucrats and the worst of them are shameless kleptocrats. The shameless kleptocrats have been searching for a source of funds large enough to replace the UNSCAM gravy train. Iran is, of course, the perfect partner to play them for the pocket-stuffing patsies they so dearly wish to be.

The best of the UN cabal, the feckless bureaucrats, just keep on keepin’ on. That is, after all, what they do.

There is little or nothing of any value to the US within the UN. Trick or Treat for UNICEF! Give ‘em two-bits and a trite smile and send ‘em on their way.

By: Roy in Calif

Roy in Calif — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:03:19 +0000

“U-238-for-Oil”

I don’t think too many countries would object to giving Iran “depleted uranium-for-Oil”. I suspect that Iran might object to the form of the delivery systems (M1 Abrams, A-10′s, etc).

U235 is the isotope that causes worry… (just nit picking – it is always easier to be a critic than a creator).

By: jedrury

jedrury — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:31:21 +0000

“either a liar or a moron.” There is a third alternative. A Democrat.

By: Barry Dauphin

Barry Dauphin — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:04:47 +0000

What a pity that the IAEA can’t use similar language to describe the level of Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA.

By: ricpic

ricpic — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:43:52 +0000

If the U.S. or Israel don’t take down Iran’s nuclear program (however close to bomb making capacity and however hardened it is) both will be guilty of suicidal negligence.
And since Bush lacks the cojones to do the necessary, expect Israel to launch a pre-emptive strike within the next six months: the “international community” be damned.

By: Terrye

Terrye — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:25:06 +0000

Even if they were not taking bribes from Iran, the UN’s track record is such as that one has to doubt them. Of course after Iraq and their weapons debacle no one trusts anyone.

By: Steven Mitchell

Steven Mitchell — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 06:55:47 +0000

I keep wondering how much faster our national budget would balance if we had no UN dues to pay?

Alternately, we put the money in a foreign aid pie, that Congress hands out to the countries deemed to be the most helpful and deserving. That would probably buy more goodwill than UN membership ever would.

By: Inigo Montoya

Inigo Montoya — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 05:58:53 +0000

The IAEA shows that they have a spine after all.

But only in the service of preventing the exposure of their own connivance.

God help us.