Dl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11443 posts, RR: 78 Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1050 times:
I think that he is in a bad position.
He has a job that has little actual power to issue or enforce policy, is saddled with an administration that is either corrupt or rendered less useful due to the corrupt other half, has a mandate to do nothing without unanimous support from a group of nations that are almost never in unanimous agreement about anything, and has acted in a distinctly biased way as regards the US.
I do not think he is evil, nor do I think he would not like to leave some lasting mark of peace or other positive movement that could be attributed to his administration but I do not see this as a possibility. The UN is too polarized and hamstrung by certain members who act in their own interest against the rest.
I believe that the UN needs new leadership and should take a deep look at its own mission so that they can reinforce that which works and stop wasting money and that which does not. Refugee aid seems to work, peacekeeping seems to fail. Disaster relief seems bring unanimity, nation (re)building seems to divide.
We need the meeting place where all can sit and talk and we need an organization that can allow nations to work in unity as the situation calls for it...I am not so sure we need an activist would-be world government that meddles and dabbles, and offers opportunity for corruption on a global scale
Falcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1031 times:
Hey Springbok, Annan doesn't think we needed HIS permission, but that the US needed to go through the UN, ot bulldoze it, to get the war it so desperately wanted in Iraq. In that case, he is correct-the U.S. to the rest of the world to f**k off, and even though it went through the UN when it served Mr. Bush's purpose, the minute he felt the UN was an obstacle, he told them to take a hike.
The U.S. made a big deal of getting 1441 passed-which was, to refresh the memories of those who still back this idiotic war, all about WMD, and nothing else. But when the rest of the world was not convinced of the "evidence" (and the world, not the US turned to to be correct on this "evidence"), the it was worth it to Bush to tell the world to go screw itself.
I think he's done a decent job, seeing who he's had to deal with, namely George W. Bush.
Miamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 954 times:
Why don't all of you that think he's done such a great job find out how much he made from the "Oil For Food" program. I think he is another politician, doing a sub-par job and got caught up in the corruption. Get Rid of him.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21346 posts, RR: 54 Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 939 times:
Miamiair: Why don't all of you that think he's done such a great job find out how much he made from the "Oil For Food" program. I think he is another politician, doing a sub-par job and got caught up in the corruption. Get Rid of him.
...and another naive scattershot widely missing the target...!
Ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12677 posts, RR: 13 Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 928 times:
I think he should either resign or be 'fired'. The horrendous corruption with the food-for-oil program, the continued reluctance by him and the UN in general to deal with regional strife and terrorism in the way it needs to be done are all good reasons.
The UN needs more than a change in it's leadership, it needs a substantial revision for today's times. It needs a restrucuting to stop it from being a place for condemming the western world (especially the USA). It needs to promote in all countries sound and reasonable represenative governments that respect general human rights. It needs to make the Security Council more representive of today's major nations, to (for example) include Japan, India, Indonesia (for Islamic world representation), at least one African country and Brazil in South America, and to cut out France and the UK, and replacing them with a EC representative. They need to make sure that the rotating leadership and memeberships of key committees, like human and woman's rights and the Security Council, do not go to violators themselves of those rights.
They also need to deal with issues that they should deal with but have been reluctant. That includes dealing firmly and with military action (or allowing the USA to do it) to enforce resoultions agains the many despotic rulers such as Saddam Hussain, and not just keep passing resolutions till he thinks he can get away with it. They need to deal in a balanced way with issues such as the enviroment, financing and banking, drug trade, the sex trades, AIDS and other medical issues and human rights issues.
L.1011 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2209 posts, RR: 10 Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 922 times:
He seemed like a nice guy, but in recent years his utter cluelessness of world affairs and his and his organization's power has removed whatever credibility he had in my eyes. I hestitate to crucify him for Oil-for-Food just yet. If he is still stonewalling a US Congressional investigation by the time this Volkner or whatever his name is guy finishes his investigation, it will be pretty clear that whatever Congress would uncover would be pretty damning to Mr. Annan and the UN in general. What has really damaged Mr. Annan's reputation in my view is his hillariously idiotic claims that various US actions are "illegal", while ignoring similar actions in Cote d'Ivorie and many other nations by the European powers. Fallujah really made him look totally clueless. He calls the Fallujah offensive illegal? Killing terrorists is illegal? What I find even more pathetic is his use of the term "illegal". He needs to realize that the UN is not a world government, and as of now no nation has turned over its soverignty to the United Nations. He can say he doesn't agree with things, that's fine. But when he whines about things being "illegal", the only thing that pops into my head is "What are YOU going to do about it?" Once he realizes that the UN is powerless militarily, he can be a more effective leader. The blatent and obvious anti-Americanism he exhibits is really appaling and does nothing to better the world. UN "peacekeeping" has been utterly worthless, if not detrimental to the various nations it has been conducted in. UN nation-building, in some ways a part of the peacekeeping, has also been totally ineffective. However, the UN has done an excellent job at humanitarian efforts. In addition, a variety of special agencies like UNICEF, the ICAO, WHO, and WTO seem to function well enough. That's why I advocate splitting the UN in half, and doing a variety of other shifts and mergers. The UN needs to be split into three parts. An economic part, for such things as the WTO, a "peace" part, for such things as the WHO, and a "war" part, for peacekeeping and other operations. NATO seems to do a better job than the UN in that department, so UN peacekeeping strength and operations should be shifted into NATO. NATO membership should be extended to all the "agreeable" nations. We need to study what benefits such organizations ASEAN, the CIS, the Commonwealth, and the EU provide for economic and peace issues. At the same time, the existing United Nations should be completely shut down, to clear out all the "gunk." Three seperate unions can do its job far better.
DeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 883 times:
He's an anti-US leader with little or no benefit in mind for the American people. I believe he has American blood on his hands, with is involvement in the oil for food scandal and other little investments of his time. He is a French government ass kisser, and anti-Bush all the way. I say we tell him to get the hell out of the UN, or we turn the UN building into a new mega-mall. I say it's a fair deal.
Iakobos From Belgium, joined Aug 2003, 3310 posts, RR: 36 Reply 24, posted (9 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 813 times:
Modest (to the point of humility), honest (a rarity where he comes from) and compassionate (something that does not sell well lately).
I bet he is the best man the US admin could think of in the last 3 years and for the next 4, since anyone else would be far worse in their view.
Kofi Annan pays the price for being a soft UN SG under these circumstances, in extenso: at a time the US governement HAS to project idea that the UN is a big and expensive bag of crap and corrupt politicians, unable to enforce anything by itself (???), and that the SG is fed by French ideas.
Anything else to make please you gentlemen ?
ps: do not think for a second that the US and other UNSC permanent members play any role in being very happy to remove any power that the UN might have. Do they veto a deployment, Annan is the culprit, do they veto a resolution, Annan is the guy, do they decide to bend international law, Annan is guilty. He is as black as a punching ball, and perfect at that in US eyes.
25 DeltaGuy: He's there FOR THE WORLD, not to rubber-stamp what the U.S. wants, or to kiss Bush's ass, did you ever stop to think of that, bright boy? Well infant,
26 Yyz717: Annan needs to step down, pronto...his presence in the UN and in the world scene is very unneeded. I agree. He is adding no value. Go back to whatever
27 Falcon84: Well infant, since you think he's there for the world, will you please tell me why he consistently has been a stumbling block in this administration's
28 Klaus: DeltaGuy, Yyz717, you´re embarrassing yourselves by publicly exposing your complete ignorance of what the UN actually is and what it really does and
29 Yyz717: DeltaGuy, Yyz717, you´re embarrassing yourselves by publicly exposing your complete ignorance of what the UN actually is and what it really does and
30 Falcon84: What the UN really is and does, is open to vast interpretation. Yes, we've seen that: most people think it's there to foster peace, and to foster exch
31 Klaus: Yyz717: What the UN really is and does, is open to vast interpretation. No, it´s not. But you may have to actually read the charta and the other docu
32 Yyz717: Yyz717: What the UN really is and does, is open to vast interpretation. No, it´s not. Yes, it is. The UN is heavily bogged down in bureaucracy of its
33 DeltaGuy: Thanks yyz717....I like that motto too- "Kofi: go home and help your native Ghana"....that place truly is a shithole. Here's my question- how'd he get
34 Yyz717: Here's my question- how'd he get the position of Sec. Gen? He comes from an obscure and non-important nation, why not someone from the US/UK, etc...mo
35 Jasepl: Ah yes, more pearls of wisdom... Boutros Boutros Ghali preceded Kofi Annan. Ghali did not get to complete his customary tenure at the UN because certa
36 Springbok747: I agree with DeltaGuy and Yyz717 Kofi only got elected because he is a black African from Ghana. The UN is just a big farce now, no one really cares w
37 DeltaGuy: The West just shrugged and allowed it, as the UN is effectively a harmless & useless entity anyway. His selection was racist of course, and based prim
38 Jasepl: Here's the deal: The United States did not want Ghali to get a second term. They were the only ones to vote against his re-appointment. even though th
39 Yyz717: No, here's the deal: Black Africa made it quite clear they wanted a black African UN SG once Ghali's term ended. This happened much sooner than expect
40 777ER: A New Zealand broad caster, Paul Holmes said a few months ago on his saturday morning Radio New Zealand show that Kofi Annan is a checky darkie. This
41 LHSebi: I'm surprised no one caught on to this one: His job is not to choose which party that suits his ass, but instead to work with what countries he has be
42 Klaus: Yyz717: Let me remind you of the rules of anet -- to refrain from name calling. Lest you get banned permanently. So you´re seeing your unfounded and
43 Yyz717: You´re trying to paint the UN as some evil villainous organization with would-be emperor Khofi Annan at the top, only there to destroy the almighty a
44 Klaus: Yyz717: I said the UN was a bureaucratic and corrupt organization spending money on dubious ventures. The same could be said about practically every g
45 Jasepl: Yyz117, again, your 'critical' view of things is rather convenient and shallow. Just like any part of the worls, all of Africa would never be perfectl