Another U.N. story not getting any media or forum play....

[j2k4]

I would have more sympathy for Fox New's vendetta against Annan if Rumsfeld or Bush had led the way and taken the fall for the crimes commited by their people in Iraq. There appears to be double standards at work here.

Does it matter at all that Annan is the head of the organization which purports to be the international arbiter of such things, and that neither Bush nor Rumsfeld IS?

Vid-FFS, would you get real?

[vidcc]

Does it matter at all that Annan is the head of the organization which purports to be the international arbiter of such things, and that neither Bush nor Rumsfeld IS?

this seems to be the opposite of your previous analogy with Hitler going to court...he after all was not the

head of the organization which purports to be the international arbiter of such things

Vid-FFS, would you get real?

I'm wishing that you would.

I'm well aware of your views of Annan and indeed the UN, but I am still at a loss as to what it is you feel the UN is not doing that they should be doing.

[Biggles]

Does it matter at all that Annan is the head of the organization which purports to be the international arbiter of such things, and that neither Bush nor Rumsfeld IS?

Vid-FFS, would you get real?

I think the basic principle is the same regardless of whether it is the UN, a Government or a private company. If the head of any such organisation actively encourages illicit behaviour (such as Enron) then they are rightly held accountable. However, if those employed to do a task several times removed from the CEO enagage in activities not sanctioned by the organisation then the blame rightly falls on their shoulders and not the CEO. The CEO is, of course, expected to exhort his people to try and prevent repetitions. If the argument is that Annan should be more engaged in trying to prevent such things then I would agree that there may be a case to answer. However, this is not the argument of the original piece - which appeared to me to be suggesting some form of isolationism.

I may, of course, have picked up the wrong end of the stick and the journalist is saying, by definition, the use of the military to conduct peacekeeping activities will inevitably lead to such abuses and that it is the concept of peacekeeping itself that is fundamentaly flawed. However, I suspect this is not the thrust of her argument.

[j2k4]

I think the basic principle is the same regardless of whether it is the UN, a Government or a private company. If the head of any such organisation actively encourages illicit behaviour (such as Enron) then they are rightly held accountable. However, if those employed to do a task several times removed from the CEO enagage in activities not sanctioned by the organisation then the blame rightly falls on their shoulders and not the CEO. The CEO is, of course, expected to exhort his people to try and prevent repetitions. If the argument is that Annan should be more engaged in trying to prevent such things then I would agree that there may be a case to answer. However, this is not the argument of the original piece - which appeared to me to be suggesting some form of isolationism.

Principle aside, Biggles-to whom is the ultimate authority-for that is what the U.N. is held by most of you to be-accountable?

[Busyman]

Principle aside, Biggles-to whom is the ultimate authority-for that is what the U.N. is held by most of you to be-accountable?

You have got to be shitting me,

Why do you skirt around the issue when Bush-Abu Gharib comes up or Rumsfeld-Abu Gharib?

If you can't say that Bush needs to be personally accountable although investigations are being done then a STFU is in order.

You are looking like an illogical zealot right now.

Damn man, get you head out of the right-wing websites, news channels, chat-rooms, and "friendly" e-mails.

If an investigation is going on, let it go on. Come on man. As a fellow American, I am worried about you.

[Biggles]

The UN acts on behalf of the member nations. It is funded by the member nations. If you like, the member nations are the share-holders and the full time staff like Annan are the Board Members elected by the shareholders.

If they do not carry out the wishes of the shareholders or pursue goals that are contra to the best interests of the organisation as a whole, then the sharehlders can replace them.

As with any large organisation, if one group of shareholders is unhappy then they must work to convince the others that there is a better alternative. The US currently finds itself in this boat and has so far singularly failed to convince even close friends like the UK that there is a major problem at the Board level.

Whilst appalling, the problems with some of the peacekeeping missions are not unique to the UN and, as I said, policeforces, churches and government care bodies have discovered similar problems in their ranks too. If Annan were to resign over it should the Pope follow suit? I have argued above why I think not, but I can understand where you are coming from. If the route you wish to take were to be followed (and I am not saying it is entirely without merit) I fear many good organisations would be denuded of very capable leaders.

Annan may not be everyones idea of a strong leader but the Secretary General is required to be a diplomat, someone that is both even handed and approachable. Annan does this with considerable grace. Whilst his successor may be a better organiser or administrator he will be a hard act to follow on the International stage.

[j2k4]

You have got to be shitting me,

Why do you skirt around the issue when Bush-Abu Gharib comes up or Rumsfeld-Abu Gharib?

If you can't say that Bush needs to be personally accountable although investigations are being done then a STFU is in order.

You are looking like an illogical zealot right now.

Damn man, get you head out of the right-wing websites, news channels, chat-rooms, and "friendly" e-mails.

If an investigation is going on, let it go on. Come on man. As a fellow American, I am worried about you.

What do you find so objectionable about this?

QUOTE-j2k4
Principle aside, Biggles-to whom is the ultimate authority-for that is what the U.N. is held by most of you to be-accountable?

Okay.

You guys win.

The United Nations is a paragon of international altruism; indeed, an example we should all aspire to, and anybody questioning it's actions or accountability should be hauled before the International Criminal Court for a proper reckoning.

Long live the U.N.!

[Biggles]

The United Nations is a paragon of international altruism; indeed, an example we should all aspire to, and anybody questioning it's actions or accountability should be hauled before the International Criminal Court for a proper reckoning.

Long live the U.N.!


I think you overshot the runway I was hoping to land at.

[Busyman]

What do you find so objectionable about this?

It's quite simple j..... (I like to boil things down to their simplest elements).....

I don't like Bush as a President.

I liken this UN scandal to Abu Gharib (which had photographic evidence btw).

I don't even think Bush should be held accountable so how the fuck am I going to hold Kofi accountable for rogue behavior.

If Kofi is shown to be involved or knowingly hiding shit then that's different.

Other than that wtf do YOU want? Are you yelling loudly but really nothing to say but...."he should be held accountable"???...Do you want him tried for war crimes?

WTF DO YOU WANT?

[j2k4]

Ah-but you are too late, my friend.

I have become the U.N.'s biggest fan and supporter.

I am planning a one-man march on the White House to get Bush to donate the entire U.S. GNP to a blind trust for the U.N.'s exclusive use, and also get him to sign the Kyoto Treaty.

That should do for a start.