[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The UN observers were intentionally bombed. Seems they were aiding Hezbollah.

More details to come in the days ahead.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

He never stands behind the United States, ever.

I could care less either way what happens to that guy to be honest.

HE IS CORRUPT. Even if you think he's not corrupt, I find it VERY hard to believe that he didn't know his son was trading on his name and position.

I sincerely believe that because of his son's actions - and maybe his own - that innocent people have died.

There is absolutely no proof at all that Kofi Annan was involved in corruption in the OFFP. And his son's involvement has been explained. Under Swiss law, you can't give someone a restraint of trade without paying them for it. You only focus on what you want to hear.

The bottom line for you is that Annan doesn't "stand behind the United States, ever." That's because lately the US finds itself on the wrong side of human rights matters and matters of international law almost all the time. It never used to be like that. The UN still serves the US though, make no mistake.

I honestly believe these references to third world countries and the general disdain for Annan is related to the fact that he's an African.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

I really await the day Kofi wants Shira law imposed upon the UN.
He's such a tool.

What's Shira law?

And how do you impose a law on the UN? Each of the nations that make up the United Nations has their own law. That's because the UN is not a state like so many of you conservatives like to believe. It's a forum.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Troll

What's Shira law?

He meant Sharia.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

He meant Sharia.

...

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Clue OreoCookie: You have no idea who I am or what I care about, whether or not I donate time to charities, anything at all.

You have often talked about your work for animal shelters, you've detailed your opinion in the Schiavo threads (with the usual assumption to give the benefit of the doubt to the family, but assume the worst about the husband) as well as several abortion threads here that crop up every now and then. I think that gives everyone of us a bit of a clue what you care about, just take a look at your post count … chances are good that you have started a thread about it already.

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Now why don't you comment instead on how and why Kofi is so corrupt? His oil for food scandal? His sexual harassment coverups? Multitudes of other issues? That might be more interesting than what I think. Why don't you dissect how and why it is that people like Kofi ruin and continue to ruin the U.N.? How lives are harmed - many more lives than the lives unfortunately taken due to a bombing via Israel?

Because I don't think this has anything to do as to whether a person deserves to die or not. Period. I believe that the world would be safer is some of the people in power, elected or not, were to be replaced by someone more suitable and less corrupt. But I wouldn't even dream of having death wishes. Sadly, it seems to be a fundamental difference between the two of us.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Troll

I honestly believe these references to third world countries and the general disdain for Annan is related to the fact that he's an African.

When all else fails, wheel out the racism card. Typical leftist thinking.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Troll

There is absolutely no proof at all that Kofi Annan was involved in corruption in the OFFP. And his son's involvement has been explained. Under Swiss law, you can't give someone a restraint of trade without paying them for it. You only focus on what you want to hear.

Of course not. He was either PART of it. Or is totally in the dark about UN goings on. You pick.

Funny how you are so willing to give him the benefit, but not Bush.

The bottom line for you is that Annan doesn't "stand behind the United States, ever." That's because lately the US finds itself on the wrong side of human rights matters and matters of international law almost all the time. It never used to be like that. The UN still serves the US though, make no mistake.

Nonsense. They have their own agenda, and have been bought out by 3rd parties.

I honestly believe these references to third world countries and the general disdain for Annan is related to the fact that he's an African.

Do you really HONESTLY believe that? Or is that what you have talked yourself into believing?

Come on Troll, puhlease.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Troll

No, because the UN says Hezbollah wasn't there!

I bet they weren't here either

[Cody Dawg]

OreoCookie:

Nevermind.

I'll PM Demonhood and Tooki about this.

I'll say this: STAY ON TOPIC AND STOP DERAILING THE THREAD WITH COMMENTARIES ABOUT OTHER MACNNERS.

[Cody Dawg]

I still think Kofi Annan is not the best person for the job at the United Nations.

I honestly think Bill Clinton would be better.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Doofy

When all else fails, wheel out the racism card. Typical leftist thinking.

Racism card? I didn't say it was because he was black! A lot of people in this thread clearly have prejudices against the "third world" and I think that's the problem. That and the fact that Annan has the courage to refuse to take it up the bum from the US.

Kofi Annan has one of the highest approval ratings of any Secretary General ever so the people that think he's corrupt or useless are a minority. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by Troll

Racism card? I didn't say it was because he was black! A lot of people in this thread clearly have prejudices against the "third world" and I think that's the problem. That and the fact that Annan has the courage to refuse to take it up the bum from the US.

Troll, my man, what planet are you living on? 98% of this continent has no idea where Annan is from. We hear his accent and just assume he's English. ****, 97% don't even recognize his picture. He's not Lindsay Lohan.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I still think Kofi Annan is not the best person for the job at the United Nations.

I honestly think Bill Clinton would be better.

Well Kofi Annan is stepping down soon and can probably run for pres of Ghana if he feels so inclined.

Kofi's successor will likely come from Asia, as it is their turn. Likely you will soon be complaining about how China is influencing the UN to take over the world.

[Cody Dawg]

My point is not that Kofi or anyone else should be American or an American ally if that's what you mean.

My point is that the United Nations is powerless.

We would be better off taking the U.N building and turning it into apartments for sale.

I don't know why we host the U.N. building anyway...could it be that the people who are with the U.N. really like the quality and calibre of living in the United States? (I think so.)

Yet they have no problem with bashing the United States.

I say that we should sell the U.N building and put the U.N. in, say, Ghana - in honor of Kofi.

[Y3a]

Most of the "foreign DIPlomats" are otherwise usless blowhards. They are only posturing for their home audience. The UN has become usless due to their total mis-handling of about every situation in the past 30 years.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I don't know why we host the U.N. building anyway...could it be that the people who are with the U.N. really like the quality and calibre of living in the United States? (I think so.)

Actually, it's because in 1945 the US Congress unanimously decided to invite the UN, which at the time didn't yet have a home, to make it's headquarters in the US.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Yet they have no problem with bashing the United States.

Who bashes the US? I don't know why you guys can't get the concept of the UN into your brains. It's not a state, it doesn't express its own opinions.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Most of the "foreign DIPlomats" are otherwise usless blowhards. They are only posturing for their home audience. The UN has become usless due to their total mis-handling of about every situation in the past 30 years.

Like the DRC elections?

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Actually, it's because in 1945 the US Congress unanimously decided to invite the UN, which at the time didn't yet have a home, to make it's headquarters in the US.

Things change. It's time to uninvite the unwelcome, rude guests. The UN could relocate it's headquarters to wherever it pleases, so long as it's not in the US. They could relocate to Antartica for all I care. The UN has become a symbol for pedophilia, rape, murder, inneffectiveness, racism, corruption, terrorism and other criminal activities.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Troll

it doesn't express its own opinions.

Yes it does, the secretary general often expresses wrong, ignorant and pro-terrorist opinions. Kofi Annan should be in shackles in Guantanamo Bay.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Y3a

"foreign DIPlomats"

That's very clever.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Yes it does, the secretary general often expresses wrong, ignorant and pro-terrorist opinions. Kofi Annan should be in shackles in Guantanamo Bay.

In the free world, the Secretary General is entitled to his opinions.

But yeah, locking people up for expressing their opinions fits perfectly with some of the other opinions you've expressed.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Troll

In the free world, the Secretary General is entitled to his opinions.

But yeah, locking people up for expressing their opinions fits perfectly with some of the other opinions you've expressed.

No he's not. The UN is supposed to be impartial and neutral, Kofi Annan is not. He's doing a great job by the way, how many people are currently dying in various regions in the world, due to his impotence right now ? The impotence of the UN is good sometimes, like in Lebanon right now.

[Sky Captain]

Or his continent of Africa.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Troll

In the free world, the Secretary General is entitled to his opinions.

No. In a democratic world, you give up the right to have your own opinions the moment you decide to run for office.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Or his continent of Africa.

How many black people have been slaughtered under his watch ? Kofi Annan should be proud of the great job that he's doing.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by PacHead

How many black people have been slaughtered under his watch ? Kofi Annan should be proud of the great job that he's doing.

Apparently you think the Secretary General is like the President of the world! Annan's watch! LOL!

Since you have absolutely no idea what the UN actually is, it makes little sense to argue with you. All you need to know is that those of you who think the UN is worthless and that Kofi Annan is guilty of paedophilia and rape and corruption and all the other nonsense you heap on him represent an incy weenie percentage of the people that Annan is responsible to. So I'm sure, Annan would tell you to talk to the hand.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No. In a democratic world, you give up the right to have your own opinions the moment you decide to run for office.

Another one who doesn't have a clue about the UN! "Run for office" - LOL!

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Or his continent of Africa.

What about the successes in Africa? Like the DRC - the biggest UN peacekeeping mission ever?

If you were the Secretary General of the UN, what would you do about Darfur and AIDS. Two concrete things for you to deal with.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Troll

Annan would tell you to talk to the hand.

As if anybody listens to what he has to say. The UN is powerless.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by PacHead

The UN is powerless.

This is news to you? Of course the UN is powerless. It's just a forum. Like Alcoholics Anonymous. Powerful people may attend AA but AA itself is powerless.

[Troll]

From Wikipedia for the clueless ones:

The Secretary-General is described by the Charter as the "chief administrative officer" of the organization. Originally some felt that the role of the Secretary-General should be purely administrative. It was the Norwegian Trygve Lie, the first Secretary-General, who asserted that it was his role to speak out and act as leader and mediator. Every Secretary-General since has spoken out on global issues and used his good offices to mediate disputes. This is in keeping with the original vision of U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt, who held office just before the creation of the UN and had much influence on its shaping, that the organization should be headed by a "world moderator."

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Troll

What about the successes in Africa? Like the DRC - the biggest UN peacekeeping mission ever?

If you were the Secretary General of the UN, what would you do about Darfur and AIDS. Two concrete things for you to deal with.

You mean like these successes?

Turn Darfur over to Egypt.

AIDS in Africa. It would require a complete cultural makeover. Africa, the only continent I've been to where people screw on the tables in the local saloons. You just can't make this stuff up.

Ahhh Sudan. Culturally enlightened Africa. And you wonder why there's an AIDS epidemic.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Turn Darfur over to Egypt.

The Secretary General doesn't own Darfur. Nor does the UN. He doesn't have the power to turn it over to Egypt. Try again.

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

AIDS in Africa. It would require a complete cultural makeover. Africa, the only continent I've been to where people screw on the tables in the local saloons. You just can't make this stuff up.

So what would you do as Secretary General to change the screwing on tables culture?

BTW, I've been to a very chic bar in LA where people were screwing all over the place. You need to get out more.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Troll

Another one who doesn't have a clue about the UN! "Run for office" - LOL!

Wait. You're not telling me that Kofi Annan was never elected to his current position? Or that it's not an "office"? Or that he never put himself forward to be selected by the Security Council?

So you're telling me that the UN is an autocratic, anti-democratic organisation?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Wait. You're not telling me that Kofi Annan was never elected to his current position?

He was SELECTED to be Secretary General out of a democratic process. He did not run for office. You'd think you'd know these things before jumping on the band wagon.

Annan was given a second term as Secretary General because the members of the UN were so impressed with the way he did his job. That's all you need to know. Those of you who dislike him are an irrelevant minority.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Troll

The Secretary General doesn't own Darfur. Nor does the UN. He doesn't have the power to turn it over to Egypt. Try again.

So what would you do as Secretary General to change the screwing on tables culture?

BTW, I've been to a very chic bar in LA where people were screwing all over the place. You need to get out more.

The civil war will take care of itself. Eventually there'll be no one left to fight.
As will the AIDS epidemic.
Either these people cut the promiscuoty(sp) or they all die of AIDS. Really simple.


I hope they used protection at the LA nightclub.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Troll

He was SELECTED to be Secretary General out of a democratic process.

SELECTED from what? A bunch of guys in the first floor bathroom at 4:30pm on a Tuesday afternoon just after they decided they needed a new leader?

Originally Posted by Troll

He did not run for office. You'd think you'd know these things before jumping on the band wagon.

If he was democratically elected, then he ran for office - there's no getting around that fact. If he wasn't democratically elected, then the whole UN is a sham.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

The civil war will take care of itself. Eventually there'll be no one left to fight.
As will the AIDS epidemic.

You started off criticising the UN Secretary General for doing nothing to solve Africa's problems and when I ask you what you'd do in his place, you say you'd do nothing!

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Doofy

SELECTED from what?

Look it up.

The fact that you don't know explains your ridiculous criticisms of the UN.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Troll

You started off criticising the UN Secretary General for doing nothing to solve Africa's problems and when I ask you what you'd do in his place, you say you'd do nothing!

Great, I'd make a terrific UN Secretary General!

Oh and the DRC is teetering on the brink.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Troll

Look it up.

No. I'm asking you.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No. In a democratic world, you give up the right to have your own opinions the moment you decide to run for office.

That's the stupidest political opinion I've heard in a while.

The role of a politician is to stand up for what's right. If a politician doesn't do that, he's useless.

Obviously, one's own opinion of "what's right" is crucial.

[Y3a]

Politicians should give up PARTY AFFILIATION while in office. They are NOW DOING THE PEOPLES JOB, and when they are no longer hold that job they can become a member of whatever political party again.

[vmarks]

A politician is elected in part based on who they represent themselves to be to the voting public.

Party affiliation, opinions both personal and on issues, and promises made are all a part of what the voting public bases their decision on.

Therefore, a politician shouldn't have to give up party affiliation, opinions, or promises made simply because they are elected.

Politicians have an earned reputation for dishonesty as it is, why would you ask them to give up part of their public identity and be even less honest?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

The role of a politician is to stand up for what's right.

Wrong. The role of a politician is to represent the people in his constituency. Period.

Originally Posted by Y3a

Politicians should give up PARTY AFFILIATION while in office.

I agree. However, I'd go one further and abolish political parties completely. Everyone independent.

Originally Posted by vmarks

Party affiliation, opinions both personal and on issues, and promises made are all a part of what the voting public bases their decision on.

And I believe that to be totally the wrong way of doing things. Parties provide no benefit whatsoever... ...in fact, they can be detrimental.

In the UK there's a thing: "I'm working class, so I must vote Labour"... ...which is a pretty serious problem, because as a result of this there's millions of voters who pay no attention at all to current affairs and just turn up every four years to vote for their "colour" - no matter how much their party is driving the country into the ground.
Banning parties would solve this problem.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Troll

He was SELECTED to be Secretary General out of a democratic process. He did not run for office. You'd think you'd know these things before jumping on the band wagon.

Annan was given a second term as Secretary General because the members of the UN were so impressed with the way he did his job. That's all you need to know. Those of you who dislike him are an irrelevant minority.

AKA Those who are buying the UN out want to keep him in so they get their continued support.

Originally Posted by Troll

From Wikipedia for the clueless ones:

Talking to yourself again?

Ziiiiiiiiiiiing!

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Wrong. The role of a politician is to represent the people in his constituency. Period.

Wrong. Even when a politician is representing his constituents, he still needs to decide what's the right thing to do.

Besides, many political choices have nothing directly to do with one's own constituency, but affect the nation as a whole. (i.e. changes to the criminal law, changes to the tax code, etc.)

And of course, a politician may represent more than just his constituency. A minister is both a constituency representative and had additional responsibilities. Certainly, the PM needs to do more than "represent the people in his constituency."

So again: That's the stupidest political opinion I've heard in a while.

Banning political parties solves no problems. I also find it hilarious that you blame voter behaviour for political problems.

In the city of Toronto, we have no political parties. Yet City Hall is just as corrupt, aimless, and leaderless as the other levels of government.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Wrong. Even when a politician is representing his constituents, he still needs to decide what's the right thing to do.

Besides, many political choices have nothing directly to do with one's own constituency, but affect the nation as a whole. (i.e. changes to the criminal law, changes to the tax code, etc.)

Wrong. All wrong.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

And of course, a politician may represent more than just his constituency. A minister is both a constituency representative and had additional responsibilities. Certainly, the PM needs to do more than "represent the people in his constituency."

That's a flaw in the system.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

So again: That's the stupidest political opinion I've heard in a while.

We'll see.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Banning political parties solves no problems.

Are you sure about that?

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

I also find it hilarious that you blame voter behaviour for political problems.

It's the truth.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

In the city of Toronto, we have no political parties. Yet City Hall is just as corrupt, aimless, and leaderless as the other levels of government.

I can't help it if Toronto is a bit fuzzy, can I?