No confidence in Annan

[fent]

Show of hands, how many liberals still want to run foreign policy through a corrupt organization?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...n_041119115027

[flave1969]

An organisation that last time I looked the U.S was a member off, who also are just one of seven nations who sit on the security council. Even the current administration tried to win support for the Iraq war at the U.N, and I am sure that it would welcome U.N backing and help now in Iraq.

As for the matter at hand. The fact that Saddam was able too do what he did under the noses of the U.N is disgraceful. As for the pardoning of this man under investigation by Annan, I think it is time for a new Secretary General. I would also welcome a far greater U.S involvement in the U.N. Why not John Danforth for U.N Secretary General.

.

[fent]

Originally Posted by flave1969

An organisation that last time I looked the U.S was a member off, who also are just one of seven nations who sit on the security council. Even the current administration tried to win support for the Iraq war at the U.N, and I am sure that it would welcome U.N backing and help now in Iraq.

As for the matter at hand. The fact that Saddam was able too do what he did under the noses of the U.N is disgraceful. As for the pardoning of this man under investigation by Annan, I think it is time for a new Secretary General. I would also welcome a far greater U.S involvement in the U.N. Why not John Danforth for U.N Secretary General.

.

the secretary generalship rotates from region to region. it has to be an african member right now and the next two terms have to be an asian member.

[flave1969]

Originally Posted by fentonator

the secretary generalship rotates from region to region. it has to be an african member right now and the next two terms have to be an asian member.

Who was the last Sec Gen for the Americas?

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by fentonator

the secretary generalship rotates from region to region. it has to be an african member right now and the next two terms have to be an asian member.

yep. Bill Clinton was interested in the job after Kofi(who still makes me laugh went I realize his wife's name is "Non" Annan), but it looks like he might go after the NYC Mayor's job. But then again, I could run against Bloomberg and probably win.

[Spence]

Originally Posted by fentonator

Show of hands, how many liberals still want to run foreign policy through a corrupt organization?

Show of hands: How many liberals ever wanted to run foreign policy through the U.N.?

Correct answer: Zero.

Of course, American foreign policy IS being run through a corrupt organization. Two of them, in fact. The Bush White House and the Rumsfeld Pentagon. Let me know when Kofi Annan signs off on the torture of innocent people. Thanks.

[fent]

Originally Posted by Spence

Show of hands: How many liberals ever wanted to run foreign policy through the U.N.?

Correct answer: Zero.

Of course, American foreign policy IS being run through a corrupt organization. Two of them, in fact. The Bush White House and the Rumsfeld Pentagon. Let me know when Kofi Annan signs off on the torture of innocent people. Thanks.

well, that's funny cause if i recall correctly there are a lot of calls here and from the former presidential campaign for the UN to be intimately involved in what we do.

[Spence]

Originally Posted by fentonator

well, that's funny cause if i recall correctly there are a lot of calls here and from the former presidential campaign for the UN to be intimately involved in what we do.

What does "intimately involved in what we do" mean? That's a phrase so vague it could mean almost anything. Mr Bush went to the U.N. asking for permission to invade Iraq. When he didn't get it, he invaded anyway. He said the U.N. was wrong and he was right. Turned out the U.N. was right and he was wrong. But no one forced Bush to go to the U.N. If you have a problem with American Presidents taking their problems to the U.N. you should probably write a stern letter of reproach to the White House. CC a copy to me, if you please. I'd love to read it.

If I recall correctly [and I do], the last Democratic President, Bill Clinton, waged two successful wars [Bosnia and Kosovo] without U.N. permission and he intervened in Haiti without U.N. permission. Hell, he didn't even ask for permission. The public record simply does not support the smears of the right wing. You may fool a lot of American voters, most of whom cannot located the U.S. on a map, but the facts are still the facts.

[Booser]

Originally Posted by Spence

You may fool a lot of American voters, most of whom cannot located the U.S. on a map, but the facts are still the facts.

there it is again - the old liberal standby. the liberals are too smart for the "rest" of America, who must have been dumb to vote Republican.

[Spence]

Originally Posted by Booser

there it is again - the old liberal standby. the liberals are too smart for the "rest" of America, who must have been dumb to vote Republican.

Well, I could mention that old right wing standby--that facts don't matter, the only that matters is what they believe. But I'd rather wonder: Where did you get that from? Clearly, the Bush admin fooled a gullible American people into thinking they were threatened by Iraq and that the Iraq War would be a walkover. Additionally, I was refuting Fentonator's absurd claim that liberals believe the U.N. should have some sort of veto over the conduct of American policy. I did so by referencing the last Democratic President, Bill Clinton, who repeatedly used American power abroad without the permission of the U.N.

Those are the facts, which can be seen by anyone who reads the previous posts. You are helpless to refute those facts, so you change the subject to something about voting, which no one had brought up. I do notice, however, that you made no effort to refute the facts I stated. That, at least, was wise. Well done on that score.

[jporterweb]

funny thing is now that we look at this scandal maybe there is a reason that the UN was half-assing the Iraq "steps". Facts are that there was a huge UN scandal, being there were more then 3 people involved it's a conspiracy. Who's to say there wasn't a conspiracy to hide any WMD's Sadaam had. Who's to say that Sadaam wasn't working directly with members of the UN?

Now before I get attacked for conspiracy theories, I'm just offering up a suggestion. I'm not saying that's exactly what happened, or that it happened this way at all. Just an idea that pops into my head from time to time.

[Booser]

Originally Posted by Spence

You are helpless to refute those facts, so you change the subject to something about voting, which no one had brought up.

uh, spence, read your previous post. you wrote about fooling American voters... i even included your quote in my response. that one didn't originate from me.

so, in this case, the fact that you are helpless to refute is that you brought up voting, not me. not well done on that score.

[Spence]

Originally Posted by Booser

uh, spence, read your previous post. you wrote about fooling American voters... i even included your quote in my response. that one didn't originate from me.

so, in this case, the fact that you are helpless to refute is that you brought up voting, not me. not well done on that score.

Okay, we're going to try this again. Slow down. Think for a bit. Use your brain. You brought up voting, not I. "Fooling the American people" refers to Mr Bush's fraudulent case for war against Iraq, which even members of his own cabinet have admitted was riddled with inaccuracies, half-truths, and falsehoods. By using lots of inflammatory and grossly inaccurate language about Iraq, the Bush administration was able to fool tens of millions of Americans that Iraq was a threat that required invasion and occupation. That's what I was referrring to. I thought it was pretty obvious. Everyone else seemed to get it.

[fent]

Originally Posted by Spence

Okay, we're going to try this again. Slow down. Think for a bit. Use your brain. You brought up voting, not I. "Fooling the American people" refers to Mr Bush's fraudulent case for war against Iraq, which even members of his own cabinet have admitted was riddled with inaccuracies, half-truths, and falsehoods. By using lots of inflammatory and grossly inaccurate language about Iraq, the Bush administration was able to fool tens of millions of Americans that Iraq was a threat that required invasion and occupation. That's what I was referrring to. I thought it was pretty obvious. Everyone else seemed to get it.

actually spence, booser's right, you did bring up voters...i believe it's pretty obvious to everyone on this board (at least those educated liberals) that the bold quote here doesn't match what you wrote earlier at which time you spoke of "fooling american voters". And you accuse ME of maniputlating the english language, i.e. being vague...at least i (an "unedcuated" red-stater) don't misquote myself



Game........Set......(are you ready for it?) MATCH!

[Spence]

You're correct. I did write "voters" when I should have written "people." My bad. Please understand that what I meant was that the Bush admin has fooled people into believing that liberals believe the U.N. should have a veto over U.S. foreign and defense policy. Fentonator repeated that obvious falsehood at the top of this thread. I believe I've demonstated beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt that the Bush admin [and people like Fent] are completely contradicted by the facts.

I apologize for the sloppiness of my earlier attempts to explain this. I hope I have now made myself clear.

In the face of this clear evidence, Fent, which you have made no attempt to contradict, I trust that you will now admit that your contention at the top of this thread was false.