A quick mention of the UN Security Council, composed of fifteen member seats. Ten of these fifteen seats on the U.N. Security Council are held by rotating members serving two-year terms, the other 5 seats are held (permanently) by the five Permanent Members (US, UK, France, Russia, and China). Apparently a country's U.S. aid increases by 59 percent and its U.N. aid by 8 percent when it rotates onto the council. This effect increases (or threatened reduction) during years in which key diplomatic events take place (when members votes should be especially valuable) and the timing of the effect closely tracks a country's election to, and exit from, the council. Finally, the U.N. results appear to be driven by UNICEF, an organization over which the United States has historically exerted great control. This in polite circles would be called blatant bribery, the US Military Industrial Complex calls it an absolute necessity.
Under Resolution 1441, the UN had given inspectors the right to go anywhere at any time and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" it will face if it does not cooperate. The teams must report back to the security council on January 26 and inform it of their progress.Iraq allowed the inspectors to carry out their work and later submitted a 12,000-page dossier detailing military programs and so called "dual-purpose capabilities" - civilian projects that could have a military application. When fully analysed, it allowed the inspectors to make fresh searches for banned weapons. However the US government warned that any perceived failure by Iraq to make an honest declaration could be seized upon by the US and its allies as a trigger for war. (The interesting part of this Iraq report concerning nations and governments that originally sold Iraq WMD and Bio/Chem, was removed from the report given to all other nations but the 5 Perm Members.) Unmovic and the IAEA hoped that the dossier would tell them what happened to the small numbers of Iraqi weapons that were not found in previous inspections, as well as explaining new developments since 1998 that had been highlighted by US and British intelligence. Much of this Intelligence was described later as useless, and suspected to be fabrications that led on wild goose chases into locations that provided absolutely no weapons or factories producing same. ( IAEA Hans Blix did complain that US/Brit Intel given them to follow up was totally worthless, the most important finding was a fire truck, suggesting the Intel was to waste the Weapons Inspectors time.) Many military and political analysts predict that President Bush would attack Iraq no matter what the latest wave of inspections uncovers, and President Saddam had so far cooperated with the UN in order, perhaps, to avoid a confrontation he would almost certainly have lost. Mr George Bush has said he is committed to "regime change", but later qualified that by saying if Iraq abandoned NBC programs it would signify that the regime had changed - so opening up the possibility of a peaceful resolution to the crisis. ( Bush-Admin statements claiming they knew exactly where Iraq WMD and Factories were, also claim they chose WMD charges because they all agreed to this one charge, proved as worthless as Cheney later in TV interview admitting Osama bin Ladin had nothing to do with 9-11.) Hans Blix later explained that of all the intelligence reports they received from both British and American agencies, all it accomplished was to have them running around in useless and unproductive circles. Hans Blix also saying that he had given Bush no reason to believe any stockpiles of WMD existed. Roger Hill a Unscom inspector said, "a lot of information we were given was provided to us by the Americans, however it was either out of date, incorrect or it was completely false and designed to take us down the wrong path." As a UN official, Mr Blix did not name Britain and the US. But there was no doubt who he had in mind when he said there was no evidence that Saddam had continued with his banned weapons program after the 1991 Gulf war. A former UN inspector, Bernd Birkicht, 39, said he believed (unaware that most of 'suspect' intelligence came from an Office of Special Plans Agency Rumsfeld had set up in the Pentagon) that the CIA had made up intelligence on weapons of mass destruction to provide a legal basis for the war. "We received information about a site, giving the exact geographical coordinates, and when we got there we found nothing. Nothing on the ground. Nothing under the ground. Just desert." He said the so-called decontamination trucks which figured in satellite photographs presented to the security council were fire engines. Scott Ritter said, "they knew it, (a) because of their own access to intelligence information, and (b) because of the work of the weapons inspectors. In October of 1992, I personally confronted the C.I.A. on the reality that we had accounted for all of Iraq's ballistic missile programs. That same year they had an Iraqi defector who had laid out the totality of the Iraqi biological weapons program and had acknowledged that all of the weapons had been destroyed. The C.I.A. knew this. There were several periods of dramatic time, but the most dramatic one is the December 1998 period right before Bill Clinton got on national TV, talked about the threat of W.M.D. and said he is launching an air campaign, 72 hours of bombardment called Operation Desert Fox. No, Saddam did not kick the inspectors out. Actually, what was happening at that point in time is that the Iraqi government was complying with every single requirement set forth by the Security Council and the inspectors. They were cooperating with the inspectors, giving the inspectors access, in accordance to something called the UN “modalities of sensitive site inspections.” In 1998, the inspection team went to a site. It was the Baath Party headquarters. It was like going to Republican Party headquarters or Democratic Party headquarters. The Iraqis said, “You can't come in – you can come in. Come on in.” And the inspectors said, “The modalities no longer apply.” And the Iraqis said, “If you don't agree to the modalities, we can't support letting you in,” and the Iraqis wouldn't allow the inspections to take place. Bill Clinton said, “This proves the Iraqis are not cooperating,” and he ordered the inspectors out. But, you know, the United States government ordered the inspectors to withdraw from the modalities without conferring with the Security Council. Regarding the disarmament UN resolution, Scott Ritter said, within months of this resolution being passed – and the United States was a drafter and voted in favor of this resolution – within months, the President, George Herbert Walker Bush, and his Secretary of State, James Baker, were saying publicly -- not privately, publicly -- that even if Iraq complies with its obligation to disarm, economic sanctions will be maintained until which time Saddam Hussein is removed from power. That is proof positive that disarmament was only useful insofar as it contained, through the maintenance of sanctions, and facilitated regime change. It was never about disarmament. It was never about getting rid of weapons of mass destruction. It started with George Herbert Walker Bush and it was a policy continued through eight years of the Clinton presidency and then brought us to this current disastrous course of action under the current Bush administration. As it turns out, what may have changed Saddam Hussein from a CIA asset into a great danger, was neither WMD or invasion of Kuwait. In fact shortly before this, Saddam began distancing himself from US ties just as in late 1970s he had removed leaders in Iraq with ties to Russia. Saddam decided to no longer accept the US dollar as Int'l-Note of exchange for Iraq oil, instead insisting on the EURO dollar. Anyone familiar with the Check-Kiting scheme we call FIAT economy used in America, know we (absolutely must) keep the US dollar as Int'l-Note of exchange. Germany after WWI used a scheme very similar to the US government economic-model, when investors made a run on the German treasury, afterward it took a wheelbarrow of money, to buy a loaf of bread. The sequence of events then leading up to American government alliance with Iraq is as follows. There is now documentation that proves during the altercation of the US government with Iran in the later 1970s, beginning after our (ally) the Shah in 1980 died of cancer, oil interests forced America into a political war with Iran. This resulted in allying with Iraq by dropping our "Terrorist Supporting Nation" listing/embargo on Iraq, an action that legalized the sale of WMD materials to Iraq... immediately after a trip by Rumsfeld to Iraq for this purpose. To be more specific, the US government set up Saddam, removed our embargo against Iraq making WMD sales illegal, and with full knowledge and US Spy plane/satellite intelligence, condoned Saddam using all these materials to poison gas both Iranians and Iraqi civilians. After this and with foreknowledge, sent a diplomat advising Saddam we would not interfere with his invasion plan against Kuwait. It is now documented that the US government also set up the "Freedom Fighters" in Afghanistan, including Osama bin Laden. Also as late as 1979 President Clinton invited Taliban leaders to Washington-DC discussing oil/gas pipeline with UNOCAL oil, and in 2001 President George Bush still courting Afghanistan Taliban regarding Caspian Basin Oil/gas pipeline through Afghanistan. Both Presidents also involved and continuing a multi-million dollar aid package with the Afghan Taliban, until just before America went to war in Afghanistan. These are not disputed assumptions, these are documented facts. Colin Powell spoke out against this aid to the Taliban, complaining that the Taliban permitted Osama bin Laden terrorist training bases in Afghanistan. The United Nations from 1990-98 had destroyed according accepted record's approximately 90% of Iraq "WMD", was this less capable than the Bush Administration. Reminding everyone the Bush Administration found none of the materials and factories they had previously reported knowing both the quantity of WMD-Stockpiles and almost exact location's they were located. Also are there no global problems regarding the ecology, economy, and societies of mankind, as Bush and his administration are in greater part unwilling to face. The rest of the world are working on these problem areas, and they are problem areas, why shouldn't we join the rest of the world. Just perhaps, understand, there are people wiser than Bush, and with greater moral stature than his administration. It is past time to (end) the "Veto Powers" of Super Power (5-Empire's) in the United Nations, and make the UN truly the Worlds "United Nations." In truth, isn't it time for all nations and peoples to attempt finding common ground and rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Some parts of this presentation are from article or radicals not of this author, used for purpose not as identified belonging to myself, and only for offering free background on the organization of the United Nations. Because the United Nations is controlled by five (5) Super Power Empires, what is predominately accomplished by this agency is an abomination, not the fault of the other 190-controlled member-nations. This United Nations is only another tool of the Rothschild New World Order, using men of greed and little moral or ethic character, these for wealth and power selling themselves and those they represent into an evil few have an odicum of discernment nor knowledge.
Another similar agency used by Super Power Empires is NATO, the 26-member nations are Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom (meaning Britain), and the United States.
Much like the UN totally under control of Five-Empire members, NATO is essentially a 'strong arm' operation to legitimize retaliatory action against a former asset having become independent along with ambitious, and as such a threat.
When this is done as an extra legal right of Super Powers it is announced as a NATO operation, however when illegal and immoral actions are called for, in this case the NATO is secretly refereed to as "Stay Behind Armies".
These after WWII and during the Empire 'Cold War' were said needed to thwart invasion by future Russian Armies, however these covert armies never saw or fought a Russian Army, but like graduates of the Ft Benning, Georgia "School of The Americas" used to train military/paramilitary of foreign-regime's, did find in their separate countries time to murder their own countrymen for False Flag blame against Communism, Socialism, Rebels, Marxist's, and today Islamofasisterrorist (spelled dissident citizens) rebelling against Death Squad, Caravan of Death, Dirty Little Wars, and sundry methods of controlling a nations citizen population and resources.
How many Americans are aware today that the United Nations is in charge of (your) unknown number of Historical Sites and Federal Reserves, in treaty signed by President Richard Nixon and ratified in 1973? As a result of a UN treaty called “The Convention Concerning Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,” these sites come under the jurisdiction of the United Nations’ Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Such designations have been the source of major debate as to whether the UN has infringed on sovereign American territory. However, the debate may be about to rage even hotter, because Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced his selections of 14 more sites to be considered for nomination by UNESCO as World Heritage Sites. The problem with this new form of protection is that we the US-Government have already set aside and protect these sites, is the Uniten Nations supposedly more honest than the US-Government? The issue lies in UN program mandates and implementation and how these programs link to other treaties and agreements, which, if accepted by Congress, could lead to direct loss of sovereignty. When an international treaty or agreement is signed, we agree to the terms and conditions of the agreements, and by default we have ceded a portion of our national sovereignty in order to meet those terms and conditions. And while the agreements do not specifically state that the United Nations has direct sovereignty, they do permit “partnerships” and other forms of cooperation between the US and the UN that provide the UN access to the sovereign policy decision making process of the United states in direct conflict with the Consititution of the United States.... so good night twinkle toes.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
| Return to Top | Back to Index of Articles |