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.

 

Global support for Annan

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Britain, Germany, France, Russia, and China rallied around UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, but US President George Bush did not explicitly endorse the UN chief, under fire over suspected corruption in the now-defunct Iraq humanitarian programme.

"Mr. Annan is doing an excellent job as secretary-general," said Foreign Minister Jack Straw of Britain, a major US ally on Iraq, in a statement released in New York as other major powers and UN members expressed support for Annan


Full Story

Well it seems most of the world supports Annan and the UN expect for Bush and a few Republicans who dont put much thought into the matter .
Probably the same people that want to attack Iran while the insurgents are still running riot in Iraq.




posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I know he is lionized by many people around the world, but I am not sure what traits Kofi Annan possesses that would endear him to Americans.

Why should Americans support Kofi Annan?



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Why should Americans support Kofi Annan?

Well for starters Annan heads the organisation where the globe including the USA airs its landury.
Annan has one of the worlds most diffcult jobs. With all do respect I dont think an american could do a better job.
If anyone thinks there is someone else who could do a better job feel free to put a name forward.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Why should americans support Annan?

Because the UN isnt there to help america achieve its agenda. The UN is there to serve the world, and whats good for the world, is not good for the USA, and vice versa.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
If anyone thinks there is someone else who could do a better job feel free to put a name forward.

I nominate Bill Clinton. I think he has already established his suitability for the role.


Originally posted by specialasianX
Because the UN isnt there to help america achieve its agenda. The UN is there to serve the world, and whats good for the world, is not good for the USA, and vice versa.

If I read this correctly, the U.S. should immediately withdraw from the U.N.

Am I right about that? Or is there some logic by which the U.S. should pursue a course that is not good for America?

If what you say is true, then the U.S. can never hope to come to any sort of agreement with the rest of the world that is beneficial to everyone. Do you really think that is true?



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 12:30 AM
link   
I would support Bill Clinton becoming the next head of the UN when Kofi steps down. My only concern is that Clinton was/or is to involved with american politics to make unbiased calls as the head of the UN.
I would like to see someone who was worked there way from the bottom of the ranks like Kofi did.
However I can think of worse people to head the UN then Clinton.
Would Clinton have the spine to push thou much needed reforms?

Kofi Bio



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 12:38 AM
link   
No, the Us and the world have come to agreements in the past and have for a long time had no serious problems.

Lately though it seems the US is bent on pursuing its own agenda and wont listen to the UN or take into consideration the impact its actions will have on the world community.

What I'm saying is no-one can be 100% happy, and if the US is not willing to consider other nations and the world community, then the US and the world cannot both be happy.

What it comes down to is compromise, something the UN has given alot of to the US, but the US has not returned. Which is why Bush is really keen to see Annan out, so maybe a puppet secretary general can take his place and kiss bushes ass like Blair and Howard do.

On the point of Clinton, I think he would do a good job as well as he had a great international relations record in his presidency.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Because the UN isnt there to help america achieve its agenda. The UN is there to serve the world, and whats good for the world, is not good for the USA, and vice versa.
Coudnt have said it better myself.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join