While Looking For A New UN Chief

Discussion in 'General Global Topics' started by Annie, Oct 2, 2006.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Personally, think the US can't get out soon enough, though it looks unlikely.

    Notice the date:

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005985

     
  2. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    I think that Havel would be a big improvement over Annan, as would be almost anyone. I remember reading that Clinton was interested in the job. I guess that has faded.
     
  3. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Interesting. Weakening the UN is one thing I wouldn't blame on Kofi. It's been pretty useless since Day One.
     
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    When I was in high school, the UN was considered sancrosanct. In college, I tried to work for, via sociology degree.

    By 1980, I'd lost faith in the concept..
     
  5. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    The applause that Chavez and Ahmadinejad received a couple of weeks ago in the General Assembly was something out of a horror movie. The zombies in the audience actually applauded those two monsters for more than twice as long as Bush. Creepy…very creepy. With sociopaths like that popular at the UN, perhaps it would be better if the headquarters moved to Caracas or Teheran. Then, at least the new Soviets would be comfortable, at home with their South American weapons customer, or with their terrorist Middle East nuke client. Lets see the Soviets pony up the 25 percent of the UN’s operating cost that the Americans currently provide.
     
  6. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    I'll just use military successes as the basis of my statement.

    Prior to and including WWII, the US NEVER lost a war. Not to terrorists (see "the Banana Wars") nor anyone else.

    Enter the UN.

    Korea = stalemate

    Vietnam (the US WAS in Vietnam via the UN) = loss due to politics

    Former Yugoslavia = ongoing clusterf*ck. The biggest criminal in that war died of old age.

    Iraq = still trying to clean that one up too due to failed UN policy

    Rwanda = willful blindness to genocide

    Darfur = ditto

    Iran = they'll have to nuke someone before the UN says "oh my"
     
  7. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I agree, which is only one of the reasons, there are many, that they US needs to remove itself from the UN along with it contributions.
     
  8. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    I agree. Regarding Vietnam, however, I would be more specific and point to the leftist media as a significant, if not the the main, reason we lost in Vietnam. The same nihilistic media process is happening with the Iraq war. The anti-government, anti-military, media similarities between Vietnam and Iraq are clear.
     

Share This Page