It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kofi Annan Makes Losing Bet on Kerry

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 11:18 AM
link   
I completely agree with the author of this article.
Kofi Annan is a joke. A BAD joke. He should never
have been put in charge of the U.N. His comment
- 'the war in Iraq is illegal' - is idiotic. He has visions
of grandeur ... that the U.N. runs the world.
How pathetic.

*****************************************
UN's Annan Makes Losing Bet on Kerry
Thomas Bray
Detroit News
11.28.04

One of the biggest losers in the Nov. 2 election was a man who couldn't cast a ballot but who tried to affect the outcome: Kofi Annan.

In a transparent attempt to lend weight to John Kerry campaign's criticism of Bush administration policies in Iraq, the United Nations' secretary-general denounced the war several weeks before the election as "illegal." It was a direct slap to an incumbent president -- and all the more outrageous because no such judgment was pronounced on Bill Clinton's war in Kosovo, which also lacked UN sanction.

Given the fact that Annan is now presiding over a monumental scandal involving the UN's oil-for-food program in Iraq, he's poorly positioned to prate about legality.

Of course, the problem with the United Nations goes far deeper than Annan's questionable leadership. Annan, who has spent virtually his entire career as a UN bureaucrat, last year appointed a group of elderly statesmen to assess possible reforms in a world much changed since 1945, when the United Nations came into existence.

Their report is due in several months. But even that isn't likely to get at the more fundamental question of why the United Nations should be considered much more than an occasionally convenient place for diplomats to jaw about things.

The United Nations and, before it, the ill-fated League of Nations were predicated on the belief that the chief threat to peace and human decency was nationalism. What was needed, it was thought, was a collective counterbalance to the nation-state, a trans-national agency that would uphold ideals of freedom, peace and prosperity against future Hitlers and Tojos.

< full story >


[edit on 11/28/2004 by FlyersFan]




posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 11:23 AM
link   
i can not stand the United Nations. i hope all of that talk in washington goes through so we would reduce our funding to them. i also hope congress gets the balls just to tell them to leave the united states and move their headquaters to sweden or switzerland.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 04:09 PM
link   
btw... it was the U.S. who insisted that Boutros Boutros-Ghali be denied a second tern as UN Secretary General, and it was the U.S. who favored Kofi Annan as a replacement.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 07:26 PM
link   
few cant stand the united nations.... the majority cant stand the united states



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 07:30 PM
link   
BTW, I wonder if he paid up with oil for food money?




Sorry I couldn't refuse but it is a legit question.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Kofi Annan is a hypocrite and a liar. Who does he think he is?

I'm fed up with the UN, out of my country!



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
btw... it was the U.S. who insisted that Boutros Boutros-Ghali be denied a second tern as UN Secretary General, and it was the U.S. who favored Kofi Annan as a replacement.


Unfortunatly, bill clinton was our president then, so - being a democrat - of course he favored the man!

Do you really think the US - which has elected G.W. Bush and a Republican congress for the 2nd election in a row - likes him?

[edit on 28-11-2004 by American Mad Man]



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 11:26 PM
link   
I should've known it would come back to Democrats being so evil they'd put a corrupt guy in charge of the UN. How easy an exit argument.


ks

posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:23 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
btw... it was the U.S. who insisted that Boutros Boutros-Ghali be denied a second tern as UN Secretary General, and it was the U.S. who favored Kofi Annan as a replacement.


btw ... it is immaterial that Bill Clinton wanted Kofi Annan. So what?

The fact is Annan should be fully prosecuted and he should have his
fate decided by the people that he stole billions from and from the
people that he left to die in Iraq and Rwanda. (those that survived)
He's a corrupt, sick, S.O.B.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by GODFLESH
Kofi Annan is a hypocrite and a liar. Who does he think he is?


He thinks that he is president of the world.
He isn't of course. But that's what he thinks he is.
He's just a paper tiger ... no ... he's just a paper mouse!



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
btw... it was the U.S. who insisted that Boutros Boutros-Ghali be denied a second tern as UN Secretary General, and it was the U.S. who favored Kofi Annan as a replacement.


Not sure where you got your info, but I worked at the UN at the time and from my memory I remember the US not wanting to support Boutros-Boutros, however the US was not in favor of a second african Secretary General, but the Africa group worked endlessly to lobby the rest of the world and it was only around half way through the lobby that the US capitulated and joined the support for Kofi Annan as Secretary General.

[edit on 29-11-2004 by Mynaeris]



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 09:04 PM
link   
well, Annan certainly has a point. The iraq war is and always was illegal, since it was a war of aggression, not defence.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by General Zapata
well, Annan certainly has a point. The Iraq war is and always was illegal, since it was a war of aggression, not defense.


That's actually pretty subjective, but never-the-less, international law means very little to America (whether that be good or bad).

The "War" in Iraq really never stopped, so I don't really know what all the fuss is over Pre-emption.

I'm against the war, but it's sort of a war that should be continued, but that will have serious consequences.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 05:48 PM
link   


I completely agree with the author of this article.
Kofi Annan is a joke. A BAD joke. He should never
have been put in charge of the U.N. His comment
- 'the war in Iraq is illegal' - is idiotic. He has visions
of grandeur ... that the U.N. runs the world.
How pathetic.


Flyers Fan: Your tautologous ad hominem remarks are annoying, very annoying: Instead of making childish remarks at the U.N. and Kofi Annan over one realm of realities faced by the U.N. amongst a million others, why don't you give us a good discourse as to why the U.N. is not fit to be in the position it is, and why it should be replace/decapitated ?

Remember, the U.N., according to it's own charter, has very little power to intervene in the politics of it's member states. It's currently going through reformation talks as we speak, that will hopefully allow it a bigger forum, more military aid, and the use of this military in pre-emptive strikes.

Deep



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Mynaeris - actually, according to the sources I consulted (and posted yesterday in the "Put Kofi Annan on trial" thread), the U.S. basically judged it had done its part by vetoing Boutros-Ghali's second term, and didn't oppose the Africans putting forth another list, since it was still their turn.

When that list arrived, Britain and the US backed Kofi Annan, while France preferred having someone who spoke better French. After a while, France withdrew its objection in order to break the deadlock (Boutros-Ghali's term was coming to an end fast) and Kofi Annan was unanimously chosen as secretary general.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Message for Bush supports.
The UN job is to help maintain global sercuity not blindly follow Bushs ideas on Iraq.
Dose the UN need reform?
Yes the UN is a sick patient that badly needs reforms. The UN dosnt need a bunch of wannabes calling for its demise because they didnt get there own way.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Motionknight says,


few cant stand the united nations.... the majority cant stand the united states
Well as the USA pays for about 1/3 or more of the UN budget, and as the USA armed forces make up the bulk of the UN's peacekeepers, youd think the world would like them less., but its OK to like them if were serving them, just not when we demand service from the UN...
Laughable and 2 faced.




top topics



 
0

log in

join