NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently, no one here has posted about the ostensibly secret meeting held to coach Kofi on what to do and what to say to get himself and the UN some credibility. The story was in the New York Times, so we won't argue about the story being reported by Fox.

Aside from oil for food, which is apparently going to be a major PR disaster when Volcker releases his report later this month, we have interesting little incidents that the New York Times validated - such as UN peacekeepers kidnapping women and young girls in the Congo and forcing them to work as prostitutes and selling them later.

Nice. We don't have US troops doing that. But it seems that the UN is just fine with that, since they still haven't stopped it.

Any comments on the future of the UN, given the incompetent leadership it is currently experiencing? Oh, and if the UN is world government, I don't remember voting for Kofi.

Wow, I suppose that Zeppistan would have decried this story as false if it had been from Fox, but as it's direct from the sacred New York Times, it's kind of hard to say that Kofi is not on the hot seat.

Wow, I suppose that Zeppistan would have decried this story as false if it had been from Fox, but as it's direct from the sacred New York Times, it's kind of hard to say that Kofi is not on the hot seat.LOL... if it was from FOX... there would've been 20 posts at least already saying how Fox was biased and the story was a lie... :D

Tho I do find it hard to believe... can you post the link and the article.

Well, what you're gonna hear from people is the "Get the plank out of your eye before you look for sawdust in anothers." This is the traditional response to this charge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/03/international/03nations.html?oref=login

Secret Meeting, Clear Mission: 'Rescue' U.N.
By WARREN HOGE

Published: January 3, 2005

Correction Appended

UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 2 - The meeting of veteran foreign policy experts in a Manhattan apartment one recent Sunday was held in strict secrecy. The guest of honor arrived without his usual retinue of aides.

The mission, in the words of one participant, was clear: "to save Kofi and rescue the U.N."

At the gathering, Secretary General Kofi Annan listened quietly to three and a half hours of bluntly worded counsel from a group united in its personal regard for him and support for the United Nations. The group's concern was that lapses in his leadership during the past two years had eclipsed the accomplishments of his first four-year term in office and were threatening to undermine the two years remaining in his final term.

They began by arguing that Mr. Annan had to refresh his top management team, and on Monday he will announce that Mark Malloch Brown, 51, the widely respected administrator of the United Nations Development Program, will become Mr. Annan's chief of staff, replacing Iqbal Riza, who announced his retirement on Dec. 22.

Their larger argument, according to participants, addressed two broad needs. First, they said, Mr. Annan had to repair relations with Washington, where the Bush administration and many in Congress thought he and the United Nations had worked against President Bush's re-election. Second, he had to restore his relationship with his own bureaucracy, where many workers said privately that his office protected high-level officials accused of misconduct.

In the week after the session, Mr. Annan sought and obtained a meeting with Condoleezza Rice, the nominee for secretary of state. United Nations officials said afterward that it was an encouraging meeting.

The apartment gathering on Dec. 5 came at the end of a year that Mr. Annan has described as the organization's "annus horribilis." The United Nations faced charges of corruption in the oil-for-food program in Iraq, evidence that blue-helmeted peacekeepers in Congo had run prostitution rings and raped women and teenage girls, and formal motions of no confidence in the organization's senior management from staff unions.

Just days before the gathering, Senator Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican who is chairman of a subcommittee investigating the oil-for-food program, had brought criticism of the United Nations to a boil by calling for Mr. Annan's resignation.

The meeting also occurred at a moment when the United Nations faces major institutional challenges: the Jan. 30 balloting in Iraq that United Nations electoral experts helped set up; the preliminary report late this month of the oil-for-food inquiry led by Paul A. Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman.

Now, the Asian tsunami is testing the organization's capacity for coordinating aid on a global scale.

The meeting was held in the apartment of Richard C. Holbrooke, a United States ambassador to the United Nations under President Clinton.

Others in attendance were John G. Ruggie, assistant secretary general for strategic planning from 1997 to 2001 and now a professor of international relations at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard; Leslie H. Gelb, a former president of the Council on Foreign Relations; Timothy E. Wirth, the president of the United Nations Foundation, based in Washington; Kathy Bushkin, the foundation's executive vice president; Nader Mousavizadeh, a former special assistant to Mr. Annan who left in 2003 to work at Goldman Sachs; and Robert C. Orr, the assistant secretary general for strategic planning. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's ambassador to the United Nations from 1998 to 2003, was invited but could not attend.

"The intention was to keep it confidential," Mr. Holbrooke said. "No one wanted to give the impression of a group of outsiders, all of them Americans, dictating what to do to a secretary general."

He described the group as people "who care deeply about the U.N. and believe that the U.N. cannot succeed if it is in open dispute and constant friction with its founding nation, its host nation and its largest contributor nation."

"The U.N., without the U.S. behind it, is a failed institution," he said.

None of the participants would discuss the remarks that were made in any detail. "Secret advice, such as it is, is effective to the extent that it is kept that way," Mr. Ruggie said.

But one participant, who requested anonymity, said Mr. Annan remained quiet throughout the session and made no promises - nor was he asked to - at its end.

"He sat in silence and made no effort to defend himself," the participant said. "He was taking it all in. It wasn't a conversation, it was much more of a, 'Here is the situation, here are the choices on what you can do.' "

Mr. Holbrooke said that the talk, while unalloyed, was not confrontational. "There was nothing adversarial about it," he said. "Kofi knew he was in a meeting with people who cared deeply about him and about the institution."

In a telephone interview on Sunday, Mr. Annan said he felt the session had been "supportive and helpful," but said it was just one of many such meetings he had been holding. "I've been talking to lots of people here and abroad and within my own organization planning ahead for the next two years," he said. "It was part of that process. We did discuss how to improve relations with Washington."

One of the members of the group had prepared for the session by finding out if the Bush administration was siding with those in Congress who were calling for Mr. Annan's resignation or whether it would support his resolve to stay in office until the end of his term in December 2006.

The official, a onetime senior government figure in Washington with close ties to the Bush administration, said he concluded that "they were not going to draw the sword against Kofi."

"Everyone I talked to, including the White House, said that if Kofi was going to go, it was going to be by the hand of the Volcker report, not by the hand of the Bush administration," the official said.

As for the staff's unhappiness with Mr. Annan's inner circle, Mr. Ruggie said: "I think there is a genuine concern in the building that senior management is not held accountable for their decisions, for bad judgments, for poor performance, and that must change. The Secretary General missed an opportunity at the end of the first term to re-energize his top team as an American president would do, for example."

Ms. Bushkin said of Mr. Annan: "My perception of what's happening is that he is preparing himself for the last two years, he's looking at his own leadership style and what it's going to take to get the job done. The last two years may require different skills in the people around him."

One top adviser who may be leaving is Kieran Prendergast, the under secretary for political affairs since 1997, who diplomats say is under consideration for the post of special envoy to the Middle East, which was vacated by Terje Roed-Larsen.

Mr. Annan also has the opportunity to place new people in two other jobs that have become open coincidentally with the departures of Catherine Bertini, the under secretary general for management, and Jean-Pierre Halbwachs, the organization's controller.

The speakers also faulted the United Nations for the state of its public communications. "Throughout the building there is fairly low morale, which stems from the lackluster way in which the institution and the secretary general's office have responded to the oil-for-food charges," Mr. Ruggie said.

He continued, "The attackers of the U.N. for too long have had a free ride in exaggerating the magnitude of the problem, sometimes deliberately distorting the facts, escalating their accusations and demands for his resignation, and frankly the response on the part of the U.N. has been inept."

Correction Tuesday, Jan. 4, 2005
Because of an editing error, a front-page article yesterday about a meeting of international affairs experts with Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations to discuss means of repairing his political liabilities misstated the term of office for his post. It is five years, not four; Mr. Annan is in the last two years of his second term.

The UN's peacekeepers are taken from other countries. The UN has no forces of it's own. Soldiers from third world countries are known for sexually abusing the women in areas they occupy. The UN definately needs to change some of it's practices.

Funny thing is that the extensively biased liars fox news has been reporting on this for the last 2 weeks, yet no other news source covered it.

Of course it all depends upon the Volcker Report, and then it's only a possibility that we may see real change. Volcker has no actual delegated power, just the ability to say stuff. Stuff which may cause outrage indirectly, but he doesn't have any direct ability.

Funny thing is that the extensively biased liars fox news has been reporting on this for the last 2 weeks, yet no other news source covered it.

Ah, but now the New York Times covers it directly, and according to Zeppistan, the New York Times is an unimpeachable source.

Funny thing is that the extensively biased liars fox news has been reporting on this for the last 2 weeks, yet no other news source covered it.
Dude, I heard about it on NPR. It's not like Fox had an exclusive.

Wow, getting personally called out am I. Do I get under your skin that much?

For the oil for food program, I have stated repeatedly in the past that I was waiting for the report rather than those who simply accepted innuendo as a call for Kofi's ouster. Gosh - waiting for facts before acting. There's a novel thought isn't it? Why, if people did that maybe they wouldn't make rediculous claims about countries having WMD as an excuse to invade them....

Regarding the Congo, what you carefully fail to mention is the fact that it was the UN itself that broke the story as part of internal investigations into allegations made. Now, I won't get into the details like if western countries involved themselves in peacekeeping like they originally promised to then the UN wouldn't have to rely so much on poorly educated and poorly trained soldiers from third world countries where such abuses already occred at home to do the job. No, that wouldn't make sense would it?

Nor will I rejoin with the fact that Americans were also caught being involved in those sorts of activities in Bosnia and Cambodia which led to the last round of policy changes intended to curb such abuses.

Nope - it must be a "UN" problem.

To refresh your memory: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15363-2004Nov26.html)

The abuse in Congo mirrors previous scandals at U.N. missions in Cambodia and Bosnia, where U.N. police from the United States, Romania and many other countries were implicated in sexual crimes and misconduct. In contrast to those episodes, the United Nations has sought to confront the charges publicly and admitted that policies devised to combat those activities have failed.

"I am afraid there is clear evidence that acts of gross misconduct have taken place," U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said at a Nov. 19 summit in Tanzania. "This is a shameful thing for the United Nations to have to say, and I am absolutely outraged by it."


Yeah - sure sounds like the UN doesn't care to me!

BTW, wasn't the reason that the US refused to join the World Court because it insisted that THEIR soldier got blanket immunity no matter what they did? But here you are wondering why the rest of the world doesn't have complete control of their forces?

Back into hypocricy mode I see....

Ah, but now the New York Times covers it directly, and according to Zeppistan, the New York Times is an unimpeachable source.


I'm just trying to see what your problem is with the SecGen of the UN having..... meetings!

Hey, it has been the Republican party that has been calling for his outer, and yet one of these deep, dark, suspicious meetings was with Condi Rice. Gosh, the UN looking to repair relations with the US.

This is a bad thing?



Oh, but some of his inner circle is resigning! Clearly the problems must run deep!


Ummmm, how many of Bush's Cabinet are gone?

What is that you want me to say? that the meeting didn't happen? Sorry - yes, you are correct that I view this source as credible. What I am NOt doing is reading the same sort of conspiracy into it that you are - especially given the makeup of who he met with.

You have spent the last two years complaining that the UN won't do your bidding. Now you are complaining that they are looking to work with you better.

You can't have it both ways.

The Riot Act of 1715:

"Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King!"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_Act

The UN's peacekeepers are taken from other countries. The UN has no forces of it's own. Soldiers from third world countries are known for sexually abusing the women in areas they occupy. The UN definately needs to change some of it's practices.


Well, they have no choice given that us western countries won't step up the plate. Many, like the US, simply balk at puttin troops into cooperative ventures unless they get to maintain full control over the entire operation. At that point it is no longer a UN mission.

When your main contributers are places like Ghana, Senegal, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Uruguay, Pakistan etc, and the developed world has military contributions like (figures from the UN for active peacekeeping participants during November 2004):

US: 8
UK: 422
NZ: 1
Netherlands: 1
Portugal: 5
Sweden: 235
Italy: 109
Germany: 16
France: 402
Belgium: 5
Canada: 207

well then, you can't expect that the UN is getting the most professional troops in the world doing the job can you.

Wow, getting personally called out am I. Do I get under your skin that much?

For the oil for food program, I have stated repeatedly in the past that I was waiting for the report rather than those who simply accepted innuendo as a call for Kofi's ouster. Gosh - waiting for facts before acting. There's a novel thought isn't it? Why, if people did that maybe they wouldn't make rediculous claims about countries having WMD as an excuse to invade them....


Had the UN not made all of the documents SECRET and not refused to share them, that'd be different.

BTW: Not to beat a dead horse, but *every* Intel agency thought they existed. Mossad, MI-5, CIA, whatever the KGB successor is... Give it a rest. :)

Besides, this is International politics. The nations MAKE the facts! :(

Not a conspiracy. It just looks like some UN-friendly Americans have called Kofi on the carpet - and according to the article, it's not feasible for the UN to continue without US backing.

I think the point that these people are trying to make is that Kofi Annan views himself as being vulnerable. And that it took some serious talking to so as to get him to realize that. And now that he's undergone such a talking to he is changing his what he's been doing somewhat.

And it's traditional for the American cabinet to change between the first and second terms. Not in the middle of the second term.

Not a conspiracy. It just looks like some UN-friendly Americans have called Kofi on the carpet - and according to the article, it's not feasible for the UN to continue without US backing.

Condi is UN-friendly?

And what, exactly, is "UN-friendly" if they are looking to change the way it operates to make it work better? Hell, you spend half your time complaining about countries that won't support you in Iraq, and also complain about the forum that the US set up to help develop cooperative strategic ventures.

The only way it seems that you will be happy is if Washington gets to dictate adn the rest of the world simply signs off on it.

Because EVERYONE knows that the dorks elected to Washington always know better than the dorks elected anywhere else.... :rolleyes:

Condi is UN-friendly?

And what, exactly, is "UN-friendly" if they are looking to change the way it operates to make it work better? Hell, you spend half your time complaining about countries that won't support you in Iraq, and also complain about the forum that the US set up to help develop cooperative strategic ventures.

The only way it seems that you will be happy is if Washington gets to dictate adn the rest of the world simply signs off on it.

Because EVERYONE knows that the dorks elected to Washington always know better than the dorks elected anywhere else.... :rolleyes:
The first secret meeting was not with Condi, but with other people who were very UN friendly.

Well, they have no choice given that us western countries won't step up the plate. Many, like the US, simply balk at puttin troops into cooperative ventures unless they get to maintain full control over the entire operation. At that point it is no longer a UN mission.

When your main contributers are places like Ghana, Senegal, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Uruguay, Pakistan etc, and the developed world has military contributions like (figures from the UN for active peacekeeping participants during November 2004):

US: 8
UK: 422
NZ: 1
Netherlands: 1
Portugal: 5
Sweden: 235
Italy: 109
Germany: 16
France: 402
Belgium: 5
Canada: 207

well then, you can't expect that the UN is getting the most professional troops in the world doing the job can you.
I don't agree with putting US troops under UN command. Armed forces should be under the complete control of their nation. If the UN wants it's own reliable and trustworthy force it should hire people with experience fighting in "respectable" armies. Mercenaries. Like security firms in Iraq hire.

Not a conspiracy. It just looks like some UN-friendly Americans have called Kofi on the carpet - and according to the article, it's not feasible for the UN to continue without US backing.


No, the article quoted one person at that meeting making that statement. That represents an opinion, not a fact.

It IS, however, an opinion that I tend to agree with.

But should the UN pass, there will need to be a new forum made unless you want to increase the marginalization of the third world leading to more resentment of the west and evenuallty more terrorism. They need a place where they feel that they can be heard.

I think the UN needs some changes made, but the general concept of a forum to gather input and to try and build concensus on dealing with problems is still a neccessary thing. It will never work all that well all the time as each country will always have competing self-interests, but sometimes it can provide the basis for some significant accomplishments.

Well, they have no choice given that us western countries won't step up the plate. Many, like the US, simply balk at puttin troops into cooperative ventures unless they get to maintain full control over the entire operation. At that point it is no longer a UN mission.
When your main contributers are places like Ghana, Senegal, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Uruguay, Pakistan etc, and the developed world has military contributions like (figures from the UN for active peacekeeping participants during November 2004):
well then, you can't expect that the UN is getting the most professional troops in the world doing the job can you.

Well, you either are assuming that the US has professional troops, or it doesn't. You either can assume that everyone else in the world is the moral equivalent of the Western nations, or you can assume that they have the moral aspirations of a dog.

A lot of nations, such as Canada, are nearly incapable of projecting this sort of power, even if they have the moral aspiration to do so. They can't afford the infrastructure necessary to support such operations.

Why should the US suborn its own government to a non-governmental entity? On a regular basis without question? Why, when I didn't get to vote for who runs the UN?

The first secret meeting was not with Condi, but with other people who were very UN friendly.

Actually, it states that this was one of many meetings. There is no indication as to what was the first overall meeting. There might have been one with an anti-UN group from the EU before this American pro-UN group meeting for all any of us know.

It is also pretty clear from the statements that the group - for such a pro-UN group - were very blunt with Kofi in a long list of criticisms and that he mostly did not respond during the meeting, so there is no clear indication of what portions - if any - he took to heart.

For all any of us know he thinks that these guys are idiots and conducted his meeting with Rice as he would have without this meeting.

If the US stopped paying its UN dues, and threw the UN out of New York, and retained its seat on the Security Council (easy enough), and vetoed everything that the UN ever tried to do from here out, how long would the UN really last as an organization?

Why should the US suborn its own government to a non-governmental entity? On a regular basis without question? Why, when I didn't get to vote for who runs the UN?

It doesn't work that way. Troops are allotted to specific UN missions on a per-mission basis as offered by their governments. You don't just throw a division to operate with blue helmets and tell the UN to do with them what they will.

You have no problem donating government-funded aid groups to disaster areas under UN auspices after all - this is not that very different.

And your country DOES get to vote for who runs the UN. You may not vote directly, but hey - you don't get to vote directly for the Attorney General who makes the rules by which you live, or the Supreme Court who interprets the laws either.

Frankly, if you are complaining about who you don't get to vote for - the head of an organization to whom you might involve your troops on an ad-hoc basis should be way down your worry-list.

If the US stopped paying its UN dues, and threw the UN out of New York, and retained its seat on the Security Council (easy enough), and vetoed everything that the UN ever tried to do from here out, how long would the UN really last as an organization?


Yes, you would successfully destroy it should you actively campaign against it. Like I said, I agreed with the opinion.


And I'm sure it would also do wonders for the pro-Us sentiment around the world should you stoop to such a petty method of doing things.

And I'm sure it would also do wonders for the pro-Us sentiment around the world should you stoop to such a petty method of doing things.
Hmmmm.....I'd say have at it!!!!!!! :)

The UN is not world government. And the US should never again participate in any UN "peacekeeping" operations. If it's involving relief aid, fine, but any troops, never again. Not for anything. No police, no nothing. No logistical or transport support for any "peacekeeping" operations, either.

I also believe that none of the money given to the UN by the US should be used for any "peacekeeping" operations, either. If the rest of the world thinks the US is so bad, and so bad at "peacekeeping", or restoring order, then they should have to do it all by themselves, forever, and take all the blame for everything that goes wrong when they try to do it.

Yes, you would successfully destroy it should you actively campaign against it. Like I said, I agreed with the opinion.


And I'm sure it would also do wonders for the pro-Us sentiment around the world should you stoop to such a petty method of doing things.
The behavior of multiple members of the Security Council could be described as petty, not just the U.S. Yet, we as a nation are expected to stand by and be humble when little nations that contribute very little to the world body admonish us on human rights Violations and election corruption. Gimme a break.

I think that the only reason it has lasted as long as it has is because it was a sparring area for the Cold War. Now that the Cold War is over, it has utterly failed as an organization - it's been dead for some time, but no one wants to admit it.

I think that's what the meetings were about. Someone at the UN had better grab their cojones and show some leadership, or it's going the way of the League of Nations.

To understand Annen read this. These events took place before the Oil-for-Food fiasco. It was written by a former UN Peacekeeper.

The Real Reason Koffi Annen Must Go (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006052)

The UN has lost the ability, capability, desire and forethought to see the world as it is. They have lost the vision of why they were created. They are so concerned with trying to please everyone that hey manage to please or aid no-one. This has resulted them in becoming a non-entity in world politics. It is the reason that Saddam was allowed to pervert the oil-for-food program for his and the Ba'athist party benefit. It is the reason why terrorist organizations have a free hand. It is the reason there is such strife and genocide in Africa.

The UN has managed to screw up the relief efforts in SE Asia already. Looting and riots have taken place at UN run aid stations. They want money for aid, but what they are not doing is looking to see how that aid is given. They are just throwing food, money and materials in the region hoping that people will be gracious and kind to each other. Personally I am glad that Bush has formed a seperate group that is providing aid.

As for the US being stingy. Our pledge is up to $350 Million. But lets take a look at a few things.

1. Name one other country that has responded as quickly as the US in aid, support, rescue and delivering aid to remote areas.

2. Right now there is two Aircraft Carrier groups off Sumatra. The two carriers can make over 70,000 gallons of fresh water per day, each. They have the means to deliver food, water, medical aid and rescue people from ANY WHERE IN THE AREA.

3. Right now Sec. of State Powell and Fla Gov. Bush are touring the region to assess the damage to determine where the US aid will do the greatest good.

What other country has sent representatives to the area? France? Sweden? England? NO!!! In fact the Swedeish Foriegn Minister was in a movie theater hours after hearing about the tragedy. Even after learning of the fate of many of his countries citizens that may have died or were in need of aid.

The US gave over $290 Billion in private individual contrabutions last year. Is there any other country even close? Public or private? Bear in mind we, the US, is only 6% of the world population.

For those that apprieciate what the US does, Your welcome! We will always come to the aid of those in need.

To those who complain about the US - a BIG F.U. Just STFU, Stand back and let the professionals do thier job. We'll get it done faster, better, safer and spend less money doing it that you all.

The UN is not world government. And the US should never again participate in any UN "peacekeeping" operations. If it's involving relief aid, fine, but any troops, never again. Not for anything. No police, no nothing. No logistical or transport support for any "peacekeeping" operations, either.

I also believe that none of the money given to the UN by the US should be used for any "peacekeeping" operations, either. If the rest of the world thinks the US is so bad, and so bad at "peacekeeping", or restoring order, then they should have to do it all by themselves, forever, and take all the blame for everything that goes wrong when they try to do it.

And this is diferent from what you are currently doing how exactly? Those 8 US soldiers operating as military advisors have been making everything work out just peachy have they?

lmfao!

The US has hardly involved itself in peacekeeping - ever. The rest of the world HAS been doing it by themselves and taking the credit and/or blame when it has been due. But does this mean that you will also stop doing things like actively campaigning NOT to send more aid to Rwanda when it was so desperately needed? Which is to say, will you stop being an impediment to go along with being no help?


Just curious.

And from the same article, why Kofi is a war criminal of the worst sort:

It did not have to happen. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, the U.N.'s force commander in Rwanda, sent Mr. Annan a series of desperate faxes including one warning that Hutu militias "could kill up to 1,000" Tutsis "in 20 minutes" and others pleading for authority to protect vulnerable civilians. But at the crucial moment, Mr. Annan ordered his general to stand down and to vigorously protect, not genocide victims, assembled in their numbers waiting to die, but the U.N.'s image of "impartiality."

The outline of this story is well known, but its most important detail is not: Tutsis often gathered in compounds (large church complexes, schools and even stadiums) where they had assumed they would be safe based on implicit, and sometimes explicit, promises of protection by Blue Helmeted peacekeepers. The U.N.'s withdrawal was, therefore, not a passive failure to protect but an active, and lethal, perfidy.

Rwandans still seethe. Last month I went to a tiny, remote village, deep in the central Rwandan hills to meet Charles Kagenza, a famous Tutsi survivor who hid in the bell tower of a church full of Tutsis that was bulldozed to the ground, burying victims alive. When I told him I worked for the U.N. 10 years ago, just after the war, he looked me straight in the eye, with his one remaining good eye, and shot back, "What are you doing here? You had the capacity to save us but you abandoned us."

NOTE: The authority to "peacekeep" was already within Kofi and Dallaire's authority. They had permission from the Security Council to prevent the bloodshed. It was Kofi's decision ALONE not to act.

He should have been sent to the Hague and hanged long ago.

It did not have to happen. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, the U.N.'s force commander in Rwanda, sent Mr. Annan a series of desperate faxes including one warning that Hutu militias "could kill up to 1,000" Tutsis "in 20 minutes" and others pleading for authority to protect vulnerable civilians. But at the crucial moment, Mr. Annan ordered his general to stand down and to vigorously protect, not genocide victims, assembled in their numbers waiting to die, but the U.N.'s image of "impartiality."

When is this supposed to have happened?

The behavior of multiple members of the Security Council could be described as petty, not just the U.S. Yet, we as a nation are expected to stand by and be humble when little nations that contribute very little to the world body admonish us on human rights Violations and election corruption. Gimme a break.

To paraphrase:

"Wahhh! I can dish it out - I just can't take it! Wahhh! If I don't get everything my way I'm gonna take my ball and go home! Wahhh!"

WTF?

Are you a nation? Or a kindergarden?


I mean, I'm sorry, but that is EXACTLY how that sounds.

Here's a thought, if you don't want people questioning your human rights or electoral processes, why don't you prove them wrong by being as exemplary in that area as you can be. Every country gets called on their problems. EVERY COUNTRY.

Most of us look at criticisms and see if we agree that there is a problem, and if so we look to fix it to satisfy our own moral sensibilities. We don't just dig our heels in and refuse to look at it simply because we don't like where the criticism is coming from.

And most of us object to unfair criticism, which also siometimes occurs.

But being "humble" has nothing to do with it. Feeling that you have a personal responsibilty to help your own country be the best it possibly can be is the mark of a true patriot. When something that could be improved on is noticed, that should be your priority rather than who happened to notice the problem first.

And from the same article, why Kofi is a war criminal of the worst sort:He should have been sent to the Hague and hanged long ago.


Hahaha, this coming from the same people who protect Henry Kissinger (http://www.zpub.com/un/wanted-hkiss.html) for his war crimes? This coming from the same people who breach treaties that they remain members of to this day? This coming from the same people who breach the Geneva Conventions and call them irrelevant? This coming from the same people who breach the UN charter to invade a country that had not done a damn thing to them. This coming from the same people who refuse to allow their war criminals to be sent to the Hague? The same people who commit atrocities on prisoners in occupied lands? The same people who hold people without right to a lawyer or due process of a hearing to see if they're even innocent or not?

People in glass houses should not throw stones. The UN isn't half as corrupt as the US government.


You will have to excuse some of us if we have a little bit of a hard time excepting your opinion with your attitude of hypocrisy.

Give me a break! :rolleyes:

When is this supposed to have happened?

Immediately preceding the massacre in Rwanda.

People in glass houses should not throw stones. The UN isn't half as corrupt as the US government.

You will have to excuse some of us if we have a little bit of a hard time excepting your opinion with your attitude of hypocrisy.

Give me a break! :rolleyes:

This from the people who want to prosecute the US for war crimes, but are not willing to lift a finger to stop the UN from doing the same. Or prosecute the French for killing unarmed civilians - an act that was indispustably videotaped.

People who think it's OK for a terrorist to cut the throat of an innocent aid worker on television, and yet want to prosecute Americans for putting underwear on men's heads.

Yes, you have the market cornered on hypocrisy. You're not willing to hold the rest of the world to even 1 percent of the standard you'll hold the US.

And from the same article, why Kofi is a war criminal of the worst sort:

It did not have to happen. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, the U.N.'s force commander in Rwanda, sent Mr. Annan a series of desperate faxes including one warning that Hutu militias "could kill up to 1,000" Tutsis "in 20 minutes" and others pleading for authority to protect vulnerable civilians. But at the crucial moment, Mr. Annan ordered his general to stand down and to vigorously protect, not genocide victims, assembled in their numbers waiting to die, but the U.N.'s image of "impartiality."

The outline of this story is well known, but its most important detail is not: Tutsis often gathered in compounds (large church complexes, schools and even stadiums) where they had assumed they would be safe based on implicit, and sometimes explicit, promises of protection by Blue Helmeted peacekeepers. The U.N.'s withdrawal was, therefore, not a passive failure to protect but an active, and lethal, perfidy.

Rwandans still seethe. Last month I went to a tiny, remote village, deep in the central Rwandan hills to meet Charles Kagenza, a famous Tutsi survivor who hid in the bell tower of a church full of Tutsis that was bulldozed to the ground, burying victims alive. When I told him I worked for the U.N. 10 years ago, just after the war, he looked me straight in the eye, with his one remaining good eye, and shot back, "What are you doing here? You had the capacity to save us but you abandoned us."

NOTE: The authority to "peacekeep" was already within Kofi and Dallaire's authority. They had permission from the Security Council to prevent the bloodshed. It was Kofi's decision ALONE not to act.

He should have been sent to the Hague and hanged long ago.


For starter, Kofi Anan did not have unlimited powers. Rwanda was a mission enacted under Chapter VI which, amongst other things, restricted peacekeepers to light weaponry only. So there was no mandate for a serious response to the genocide given.

As to Kofi refusing to help, Romeo disagrees with you, and he would know. (http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/events/dallaire/dallaire.php)


Roméo Dallaire:

Kofi Annan in the December time frame had signed an agreement with 69 countries. I don't agree with any UN army. I mean, don't ever do that. One, you never know its loyalty, two, the hiring practices are something, and if it fails what the hell do you do with it then? So you don't want that and you want responsible nations and their politicians to be held responsible for providing troops but they must provide them for the humanity and not just for self-interest.

Sixty-nine nations said Kofi Annan, you call us and we'll provide troops. And they were pouring them into the Balkans and so on. Within the first few days of the Rwandan war and genocide Kofi Annan went to all 69 countries. Not one of them provided one soldier.


It is a very interesting interview.

This from the people who want to prosecute the US for war crimes, but are not willing to lift a finger to stop the UN from doing the same. Or prosecute the French for killing unarmed civilians - an act that was indispustably videotaped.

Oh and none of us watched right on TV an American solider shoot in the head a wounded unarmed man in Iraq more than once? I sure seen it on TV. How many innocent civilians has the US army killed? Oh right, that's just collateral damage. :rolleyes:

Maybe when the US government becomes accountable for their crimes, we might lend an ear to your grievances with the UN, perhaps when the US isn't the most corrupt nation in the free world I'll hear you out. Clean up your own backyard before you go bitching about the UN.

Oh and none of us watched right on TV an American solider shoot in the head a wounded unarmed man in Iraq more than once? I sure seen it on TV. How many innocent civilians has the US army killed? Oh right, that's just collateral damage. :rolleyes:

Maybe when the US government becomes accountable for their crimes, we might lend an ear to your grievances with the UN, perhaps when the US isn't the most corrupt nation in the free world I'll hear you out. Clean up your own backyard before you go bitching about the UN.

Wow. And how do you prove that the US is "the most corrupt nation in the free world"?

Hardly. If you read your Geneva Convention, you may find that the shooting of the wounded Iraqi was perfectly legal.

I don't hear any court martial, do you?

Hardly. If you read your Geneva Convention, you may find that the shooting of the wounded Iraqi was perfectly legal

Perhaps you should read the Geneva Conventions, it's a breach of them. He was wounded and unarmed! Doh!

Apparently, no one here has posted about the ostensibly secret meeting held to coach Kofi on what to do and what to say to get himself and the UN some credibility. The story was in the New York Times, so we won't argue about the story being reported by Fox.

Aside from oil for food, which is apparently going to be a major PR disaster when Volcker releases his report later this month, we have interesting little incidents that the New York Times validated - such as UN peacekeepers kidnapping women and young girls in the Congo and forcing them to work as prostitutes and selling them later.

Nice. We don't have US troops doing that. But it seems that the UN is just fine with that, since they still haven't stopped it.

Any comments on the future of the UN, given the incompetent leadership it is currently experiencing? Oh, and if the UN is world government, I don't remember voting for Kofi.
While I'm glad that he was at least willing to listen, I hardly see this as "reading him the riot act."

Perhaps you should read the Geneva Conventions, it's a breach of them. He was wounded and unarmed! Doh!

You have to be officially captured. If you're not officially captured, and others of your type have been using wounds as a ruse in combination with explosives (which was the case), you can be shot again and again as troops come near you.

It's also NATO policy, if you'll care to look.

I think that the main problem I have with the UN was its feeble attempt to involve itself in the US elections against Bush.

That's a violation of Chapter 1, Article 2, Section 7.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Our election is definitely within the domestic jurisdiction of the US, and Kofi Annan should have no comment on it, and run no commercials in the US.

For this reason alone, the US should make every attempt to gut and shut down the UN. Forever.

Oh and none of us watched right on TV an American solider shoot in the head a wounded unarmed man in Iraq more than once? I sure seen it on TV. How many innocent civilians has the US army killed? Oh right, that's just collateral damage. :rolleyes:
That includes shooting their allies. All collateral damage.
On Ruanda. Americans always like to mouth off at France about that. How French troops did not intevene. What about the 250 US army rangers busy working on their teint in Burundi? After the deaths of 18 American soldiers in Somalia in October 1993, the United States decided to participate in no more UN military missions. The Clinton administration further decided that no significant UN missions were to be allowed at all, even if American troops would not be involved. Thanks mostly to the delaying tactics of the US, after 100 days of the genocide not a single reinforcement of UN troops or military supplies had reached Rwanda.

And here's everyones favorit prez:
George W. Bush, during the campaign for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination, was asked by a TV interviewer what he would do as president if, "God forbid, another Rwanda" should take place. He replied: "We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our own strategic interest. I would not send US troops into Rwanda."

Wow. And how do you prove that the US is "the most corrupt nation in the free world"?
It's common knowledge.

The US should never send US troops to be under any foreign command.
The US should never send US troops to be involved in any UN operation other than relief aid - no peacekeeping of any kind - period.

The world, which vastly outnumbers the US, and which has far more money than the US, and far more people, and far more military equipment and planes, should do the peacekeeping all by itself.

That way, no one could say, "well, the US screwed up that peacekeeping mission" or "the US took sides in that UN intervention".

The most you could say is that the UN screwed up and tried to blame the results on the fact that the US wasn't even there.

Perhaps you should read the Geneva Conventions, it's a breach of them. He was wounded and unarmed! Doh!


How do you know he was unarmed? He could have had explosives hidden on him, which had happened just the day before. Besides he was pretending to play dead before, now suddenly he is alive and moving his arms. Sorry but if someone is looking around for enemies in a room and you are in that room, don't move around. Remain still till you get help.

Why don't you condemn the foreign insurgents in Iraq who break the Geneva Convention rules by faking surrender, then opening fire? Oh thats right, you are totally anti-American. You prove it whenever you make statements regarding this country. I like how you once said you were impartial, HAHA! Go eat a mad cow burger!

The US should never send US troops to be under any foreign command.
The US should never send US troops to be involved in any UN operation other than relief aid - no peacekeeping of any kind - period.

The world, which vastly outnumbers the US, and which has far more money than the US, and far more people, and far more military equipment and planes, should do the peacekeeping all by itself.

That way, no one could say, "well, the US screwed up that peacekeeping mission" or "the US took sides in that UN intervention".

The most you could say is that the UN screwed up and tried to blame the results on the fact that the US wasn't even there.
The US shouldn't call then for a greater UN involvement in Iraq after they screwed up.

It's common knowledge.

That's about as ludicrous as saying it's common knowledge that you eat wren's livers every day for lunch.

The US shouldn't call then for a greater UN involvement in Iraq after they screwed up.

No, we shouldn't. If anyone's interested in being involved, OK. But not the UN, and certainly not under UN authority.

That's about as ludicrous as saying it's common knowledge that you eat wren's livers every day for lunch.
Whats a wren? And I do like livers.
And it's not a secret that the US is the most corrupt nation on the planet. What do you think is going on in the middle east? Democratization? (sp)
It's all about securing the US's oil interests for future invasions. And make money for your presidents oil buddies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/03/international/03nations.html?oref=login


The problem with your link is you have to login in order to view the data.

Try this link instead:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/03/international/03nations.html

(Basically remove the login part.) :)

Here is another article (from an online Indian English language "paper") that paints a more friendly view of the situation between Annan and the United States (I hope my link works):

http://www.thestatesman.net/page.aboutus.php?usrsess=1


America teaches Annan staff management

Press Trust of India
NEW YORK, Jan. 3. — A group of US foreign policy experts advised UN Secretary General Kofi Annan on how to refresh his top management at a private meeting held recently, a report said today.

The aim of the 5 December meeting, at the New York apartment of former US ambassador to the UN Mr Richard Holbrooke, was “to save Kofi and rescue the UN,” a participant was quoted by the New York Times as saying.

At the gathering, Mr Annan listened quietly to three- and-a-half hours of bluntly worded counsel from a group united in its personal regard for him and support for the United Nations, it said.

The group’s concern, was that lapses in Mr Annan’s leadership during the past two years had eclipsed the accomplishments of his first four-year term in office and were threatening to undermine the two years remaining in his final term.

“The intention was to keep it confidential,” Mr Holbrooke was quoted as saying. “No one wanted to give the impression of a group of outsiders, all of them Americans, dictating what to do to a Secretary General.”

They began arguing that Mr Annan had to refresh his top management. The NYT reported that the meeting addressed two broad needs. First, Mr Annan had to repair relations with Washington, where the Bush administration and many in Congress thought he and the UN had worked against President Bush’s re-election.

Second, he had to restore his relationship with his bureaucracy, with allegations that his office protected high-level officials accused of misconduct.

Meanwhile, in a telephone interview with the paper, Mr Annan said he felt the session had been “supportive and helpful.” The UN chief said: “I’ve been talking to lots of people here and abroad and within my own organisation planning ahead for the next two years...”

UN reshuffle

Mr Annan today appointed a new chief of staff, the first of what he described as a “series of changes” among senior UN staff, adds AP. Mr Mark Malloch Brown, currently the administrator for the UN Development Programme, will begin his new job as Mr Annan’s right-handman on 19 January. He replaces Mr Iqbal Riza, who retired on 22 December.


I've highlighted the section that makes a reference to a New York Times article, though I don't know if it is the same article you presented here.

Yes, the "credible" New York Times requires people to register (although it's free) to login and view their articles.

That's why I cut and pasted it into the post above.

The world, which vastly outnumbers the US, and which has far more money than the US, and far more people, and far more military equipment and planes, should do the peacekeeping all by itself.


Well, that could be an argument in favour of the US letting the rest of the world take care of all the "peacemaking"/warfare as well. :D

Whats a wren? And I do like livers.
And it's not a secret that the US is the most corrupt nation on the planet. What do you think is going on in the middle east? Democratization? (sp)
It's all about securing the US's oil interests for future invasions. And make money for your presidents oil buddies.

Yup a whole lot of that Iraqi oil is flooding the US market. Get a clue you whack-job!

Note also that by contributing forces to peacekeeping missions, nations decrease the amount of money they must contribute.
This is why nations like Pakistan, Ukraine and Nigeria often have many more troops wearing blue helmets than Holland, America or Japan.

Note also that by contributing forces to peacekeeping missions, nations decrease the amount of money they must contribute.
This is why nations like Pakistan, Ukraine and Nigeria often have many more troops wearing blue helmets than Holland, America or Japan.

Actually, beyond a certain point, nations are paid to provide troops. In fact, a certain (can't remember which) West African nation gets almost all the money for their defense budget from the UN.

Wow, getting personally called out am I. Do I get under your skin that much?


LOL!

That just means you are vocal. :) Just be glad they can spell your name correctly.


For the oil for food program, I have stated repeatedly in the past that I was waiting for the report rather than those who simply accepted innuendo as a call for Kofi's ouster. Gosh - waiting for facts before acting. There's a novel thought isn't it? Why, if people did that maybe they wouldn't make rediculous claims about countries having WMD as an excuse to invade them....


Actually I felt the NYT article wasn't that bad. For example:


He described the group as people "who care deeply about the U.N. and believe that the U.N. cannot succeed if it is in open dispute and constant friction with its founding nation, its host nation and its largest contributor nation."

The entire article to me read as if people are concerned over the political image of the UN right now and wanted to pass along some advice.

Yes, the "credible" New York Times requires people to register (although it's free) to login and view their articles.

That's why I cut and pasted it into the post above.

This is a tagent, but it is a good idea to paste some quotes from a link anyways, in order to direct people to the text you found particularly useful. :)

Actually, beyond a certain point, nations are paid to provide troops. In fact, a certain (can't remember which) West African nation gets almost all the money for their defense budget from the UN.

That's also true.

I think that the main problem I have with the UN was its feeble attempt to involve itself in the US elections against Bush.

That's a violation of Chapter 1, Article 2, Section 7.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Our election is definitely within the domestic jurisdiction of the US, and Kofi Annan should have no comment on it, and run no commercials in the US.

For this reason alone, the US should make every attempt to gut and shut down the UN. Forever.


Right.



God forbid that anyone would ever be interested in regime change in another country......

How do you know he was unarmed?

It was admitted that he was unarmed and it was shot by the imbed reporters camera guy.


Why don't you condemn the foreign insurgents in Iraq who break the Geneva Convention rules

First of all they are not "insurgents" as Saddam the President of Iraq has not surrendered. The was no surrender at any point. The surrender must be given by the recognized government of Iraq, no such thing ever happened. The current administration running Iraq is not a legitimate government. Since there was no surrender and there is no legitimate government in Iraq, you can't exactly have insurgents now can you. As for any foreign fighters, are the Iraqi's not allowed to have allies too? Or is only the Invaders allowed that? As for them breaking Geneva Conventions, why should they follow them? It's not like the invading force is following them. Lets not forget who the aggressors are.. it's not the Iraqi's, they are just fighting to liberate their country from a foreign aggressor. Just because you may not like the way they ran their country, that gave you no right under the UN charter or International law to which you are a signatory member to invade Iraq. It was an illegal action to treaties you ARE signatory to this day!

Well, I haven't heard any motions floated in the Security Council to condemn the US invasion of Iraq...

It was admitted that he was unarmed and it was shot by the imbed reporters camera guy.




First of all they are not "insurgents" as Saddam the President of Iraq has not surrendered. The was no surrender at any point. The surrender must be given by the recognized government of Iraq, no such thing ever happened. The current administration running Iraq is not a legitimate government. Since there was no surrender and there is no legitimate government in Iraq, you can't exactly have insurgents now can you. As for any foreign fighters, are the Iraqi's not allowed to have allies too? Or is only the Invaders allowed that? As for them breaking Geneva Conventions, why should they follow them? It's not like the invading force is following them. Lets not forget who the aggressors are.. it's not the Iraqi's, they are just fighting to liberate their country from a foreign aggressor. Just because you may not like the way they ran their country, that gave you no right under the UN charter or International law to which you are a signatory member to invade Iraq. It was an illegal action to treaties you ARE signatory to this day!


Sure they haven't surrendered, but who is left from the original government to surrender. Obviously since Saddam is in prison he is not in charge. Seems like most of the Saddam government has been captured. I guess they are just waiting for Saddam to get out of the charges, then they'll just reform the old government. Sorry but they have been defeated, so yes, these terrorists are insurgents.

Sure Iraqi's have the right to fight for whatever they want, but you must call the foreign nationals who fight for their own causes insurgents. Heck we are insurgents as well.

You continually call the US on the carpet for "violations", but will you condemn those foreign born insurgents for committing far more violations then the US has? We are not mass torturers. The UN was a scam in regards to Iraq. Why did the UN never enforce any of it's Iraq resolutions? Why should the US have to follow an impotent body? It may be fine for Canada who love killing 300,000+ baby seals each year, but we in the US actually are not impotent.

It seems most "Canadian Pride" is nothing more than Anti-Americanism at best. Don't you have ANYTHING to be proud of that doesn't relate to the U.S.?

BTW-The video footage did not show whether he did have anything hidden on his person in regards to explosives. ;)

So basically anyone critical of america is anti-american?

How about this perspective: They like america, just like we do, but they don't want to see it fuck itself so often as it is doing these days. America is supposed to be a world role model, but right now it fails as such.

So often do people'e views get written off as anti-america just becuase they are critical of things. The whole point of our nation were for people to be critical as it would help refine and make better our country.

A group of yes men never made anything grow except for an ego.

Apparently, no one here has posted about the ostensibly secret meeting held to coach Kofi on what to do and what to say to get himself and the UN some credibility.

Y'know, I really love the word "ostensibly". It makes me feel all squishy inside.

Sure they haven't surrendered, but who is left from the original government to surrender. Obviously since Saddam is in prison he is not in charge. Seems like most of the Saddam government has been captured. I guess they are just waiting for Saddam to get out of the charges, then they'll just reform the old government. Sorry but they have been defeated, so yes, these terrorists are insurgents.

Sure Iraqi's have the right to fight for whatever they want, but you must call the foreign nationals who fight for their own causes insurgents. Heck we are insurgents as well.

You continually call the US on the carpet for "violations", but will you condemn those foreign born insurgents for committing far more violations then the US has? We are not mass torturers. The UN was a scam in regards to Iraq. Why did the UN never enforce any of it's Iraq resolutions? Why should the US have to follow an impotent body? It may be fine for Canada who love killing 300,000+ baby seals each year, but we in the US actually are not impotent.

It seems most "Canadian Pride" is nothing more than Anti-Americanism at best. Don't you have ANYTHING to be proud of that doesn't relate to the U.S.?

BTW-The video footage did not show whether he did have anything hidden on his person in regards to explosives. ;)

Even if we take Saddam out of the argument. There is no legitimate government in Iraq, therefore there can not be "insurgents"

Main Entry: 1in·sur·gent
Pronunciation: -j&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin insurgent-, insurgens, present participle of insurgere to rise up, from in- + surgere to rise -- more at SURGE
1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party .

The use of the word "insurgency" is a propaganda ploy that has been being used by the American authority in Iraq and their puppets. Same as any one trying to fight the Americans in Iraq are terrorists. Maybe they are just trying to defend their land. It's the language of propaganda. I believe they teach the use of propaganda in grade 10 or some thing like that? It's not rocket science hun.

It's also a known fact that man wasn't armed and they knew it. So stop trying to make stuff up, when it's common knowledge.

Squishy is ok unless those parts fall out on the ground.

I think that other people certainly read it, even in their prized news source, and refused to bring it up because they don't want to bring up anything that makes Kofi look like an ignorant errand boy, which he certainly appears to be now.

Kofi, if you want to keep this cushy job and keep your son's lucrative position where he can accept bribes, you'll have to kiss some US butt to do so.

Sure they haven't surrendered, but who is left from the original government to surrender. Obviously since Saddam is in prison he is not in charge. Seems like most of the Saddam government has been captured. I guess they are just waiting for Saddam to get out of the charges, then they'll just reform the old government. Sorry but they have been defeated, so yes, these terrorists are insurgents.

Sure Iraqi's have the right to fight for whatever they want, but you must call the foreign nationals who fight for their own causes insurgents. Heck we are insurgents as well.

You continually call the US on the carpet for "violations", but will you condemn those foreign born insurgents for committing far more violations then the US has? We are not mass torturers. The UN was a scam in regards to Iraq. Why did the UN never enforce any of it's Iraq resolutions? Why should the US have to follow an impotent body? It may be fine for Canada who love killing 300,000+ baby seals each year, but we in the US actually are not impotent.

It seems most "Canadian Pride" is nothing more than Anti-Americanism at best. Don't you have ANYTHING to be proud of that doesn't relate to the U.S.?

BTW-The video footage did not show whether he did have anything hidden on his person in regards to explosives. ;)

You know, when discussing one's differences one has to use the other as a baseline, so I can see where you might feel that way about Canadian pride in that we seem to spend a lot of time here talking to Americans and so when we point out our differences it is generally done in the form of a direct comparison.

Rest assured that when conversing with the Brits that we still ask them why they can't cook, denigrate them for the residual aspects of their class system, and question why they call private schools "public".

To the French, we remind them that while nice, their cuisine is not the be-all and end-all of the world, nor is their wine. We find that they lean so far to the left in some areas that we shake our heads at them, and also ask them why they can't manage to find polite people to staff their retail outlets.

And to all three of you, we ask why the need for so many nukes.

More to the point, until you all realize that the only sports worth watching are played on ice - we clearly are operating from fundamentally different core values. ;)



As to the rest: yes - foreign fighters in Iraq deserve to be treated harshly, but if the UN hadn't enforced their resolutions then where are all the WMD? Maybe, just maybe, the UN did a better job in some areas than you give them credit for.

And for baby seals - as much as I personally disapprove of how they hunt them, the end result is little different than any other licenced hunting or fishing activity: a certain percent of a population of a species killed. Frankly, that is not unique to Canada. Hunting is big business in many countries - including such odious concepts as private zoos of exotic animals raised just so people can pay the proprieter for the right to kill them that are now found in the States.

Is clubbing seals somehow worse than if they just shot them? Certainly it a more visceral graphic image, but the end result is the same.

At any rate, I'm not up for a debate on the comparative merits of hunting techniques as it is far afield from the subject at hand.

Squishy is ok unless those parts fall out on the ground.

I think that other people certainly read it, even in their prized news source, and refused to bring it up because they don't want to bring up anything that makes Kofi look like an ignorant errand boy, which he certainly appears to be now.

Kofi, if you want to keep this cushy job and keep your son's lucrative position where he can accept bribes, you'll have to kiss some US butt to do so.

Offering the most serious post I can given my current inebriated state, I must say that the UN seriously lacks oversight. This, however, is not an inherant problem in the UN but stems from the fact that the vast majority of those viewing the UN consider it either as a glorious panacea for all the world's ills, or as an evil black-helicopter wielding conspiracy attempting to destroy the free world. Thus there's a relative lack of informed observers willing to accept both the UN's neccesity in the current age and the serious weaknesses in it's current setup.

Jesus H Christ, 4 beers and a courple of double whiskeys and I'm verbose like a bitch.

It was admitted that he was unarmed and it was shot by the imbed reporters camera guy.




First of all they are not "insurgents" as Saddam the President of Iraq has not surrendered. The was no surrender at any point. The surrender must be given by the recognized government of Iraq, no such thing ever happened. The current administration running Iraq is not a legitimate government. Since there was no surrender and there is no legitimate government in Iraq, you can't exactly have insurgents now can you. As for any foreign fighters, are the Iraqi's not allowed to have allies too? Or is only the Invaders allowed that? As for them breaking Geneva Conventions, why should they follow them? It's not like the invading force is following them. Lets not forget who the aggressors are.. it's not the Iraqi's, they are just fighting to liberate their country from a foreign aggressor. Just because you may not like the way they ran their country, that gave you no right under the UN charter or International law to which you are a signatory member to invade Iraq. It was an illegal action to treaties you ARE signatory to this day!

Wow, are you insane?
This might do you some good.
http://www.freakingnews.com/entries/7500/7911HMol_w.jpg

Wow, are you insane?
This might do you some good.
http://www.freakingnews.com/entries/7500/7911HMol_w.jpg

Yes, I disagree with you, that clearly makes me insane.. LOL.. :D You're too fuuny.

Well, I haven't heard any motions floated in the Security Council to condemn the US invasion of Iraq...

And you won't ...

The United States, Great Britian, France, PRC, and Russia each have a veto. It doesn't matter how the Council votes, because any Security Council resolution condemning the United States will not only result in two vetoes, but will also result in one of those nations cutting off some of its funding for other Peacekeeping Operations.

This means that the argument that "Well the Security Council isn't upset about this" really isn't valid. I think that may be what you were implying, and my apologizes if that wasn't your point.

Like the UN or dislike the UN, the fact remains that the UN and the United States have always had a love / hate relationship, and I'm of the opinion this is to be expected.

Look at how some of the nations in this game treat the NS UN ... they have a "Dork, read the UN FAQ! It is the job of the NS UN to force other nations to our will! LOL!"

In the game there is no real model for nations that are unhappy with the organize to underfund it. A shame really, because if we could pick which programs to implement, we'd likely see much more compromise going on.

I hate to play the old man card here, but I'm convinced the UN forum has a large number of teenagers whom are playing and while some of them are incredibly mature and really brilliant, it only takes one or two outspoken players whom don't understand how *people* and *governments* interact to really bring down the level of realism in that aspect of the game. Heck, there is a reason so many players engage in closed roleplay in the International Incidents forum. The NS UN has no real game mechanism to penalize UN members for wonky resolutions, and so the tension between the real-life UN and US is something that NationState players resolve by simply leaving the NS UN. The US can't easily do that either ... without really angering many American citizens.