http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6204980.stm

His comments seem a bit trite to me.... where he comments about how a parent doesn't know now if their kid will come back home alive or not... seems to dismiss how Saddam and his thugs routinely would pick up civilians and abuse them and the UN just let that happen.

Personally I am glad to see the back of Annan.

Paul

Personally I am glad to see the back of Annan.




Me too!

I disagree. I think Kofi Annan is a good man and has been as great as Secretary General as the nations have let him be.

He wasn't appointed by God to solve the world's problems. He wasn't a modern-day Noah! He was a leader without any power at all - AT ALL! His only tools were his diplomatic skills, which he has used to good effect.

He was a lone police officer without power - without a gun, without backup, without means to arrest, armed only with a badge of office (for what that may be worth) - trying to break up a street fight between the Crips and the Hoods, both gangs several hundred strong.

What could be expected? If the nations of the world - most especially the Security Council - won't heed his words, what can he do?

Besides, the Security Council is only a small part of the work of the UN and Kofi Annan is not even the president of the Securty Council. I'm not sure Annan even has a seat on the Security Council.

The UN's other work includes UNICEF, UNCTAD, Environmental programs, Social programs, UNESCO, WHO, Children's programs, Poverty programs, Education programs, WTO, IMF, and Lord knows what else. This is the area to look at to see what Kofi Annan has done. And I believe he is highly regarded by the people at the United Nations.

The Security Council is the section always in the news, but it is the tip of the iceberg and under the control of half-a-dozen major powers of the world. Any failings in this department must be laid at the door of said powers, not Kofi Annan.

I disagree. I think Kofi Annan is a good man and has been as great as Secretary General as the nations have let him be.


You don't think he was corrupt Spider? Oil for food ring a bell? Shredding of documents by his staff to impede the investigation ring any bells? Missing money ring any bells? With good men in power like that...

Paul

You don't think he was corrupt Spider? Oil for food ring a bell? Shredding of documents by his staff to impede the investigation ring any bells? Missing money ring any bells? With good men in power like that... As far as I am aware, nothing has been proven otherwise the man would be in jail. I'm not one for gossip, Paul. When I see him in prison, then I will believe him corrupt.

In the meanwhile, I believe he has done a good job. Even if he is guilty of breaking the law, the job he did is the job he did, and to my mind it was pretty well done.

As far as I am aware, nothing has been proven otherwise the man would be in jail. I'm not one for gossip, Paul. When I see him in prison, then I will believe him corrupt.


Sure... along with OJ...


In the meanwhile, I believe he has done a good job. Even if he is guilty of breaking the law, the job he did is the job he did, and to my mind it was pretty well done.

A stunning record Spider... Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia... inaction for how many years over Iraq's flagrant violations of UN sanctions? Oil for food scandals, North Korea? The list of stunning successes of Kofi and the UN just go on and on don't they Spider. I honestly don't know how we will cope without the poor guy in charge. :confused:

Paul

Sure... along with OJ...



A stunning record Spider... Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia... inaction for how many years over Iraq's flagrant violations of UN sanctions? Oil for food scandals, North Korea? The list of stunning successes of Kofi and the UN just go on and on don't they Spider. I honestly don't know how we will cope without the poor guy in charge. :confused:

Paul
'bout the same as we will cope with life without GWB.

...A stunning record Spider... Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia... inaction for how many years over Iraq's flagrant violations of UN sanctions? Oil for food scandals, North Korea? The list of stunning successes of Kofi and the UN just go on and on don't they Spider. I honestly don't know how we will cope without the poor guy in charge.I don't see how Kofi Annan made the Hutus kill Tutsi in Rwanda (1994 -before his time, actually), or how Annan drove the Sudanese to kill peole in Darfur, or how Annan caused any inaction over Iraq, or how he made Iraq violate any UN sanctions, or how Annan made North Korea test a nuclear bomb. (I left out Oil for Food, in deference to you.)

While you're at it, Paul, why don't you blame Kofi Annan for global warming, destruction of the rainforests, the London and Madrid bombings, 9-11, al-Qeida, the Lebanon conflict, Palestine-Israel. and Iranian nuclear development. He's probaly responsible for England being 1 down in the Test match, too!

I don't see how Kofi Annan made the Hutus kill Tutsi in Rwanda (1994 -before his time, actually), or how Annan drove the Sudanese to kill peole in Darfur, or how Annan caused any inaction over Iraq, or how he made Iraq violate any UN sanctions, or how Annan made North Korea test a nuclear bomb. (I left out Oil for Food, in deference to you.)

While you're at it, Paul, why don't you blame Kofi Annan for global warming, destruction of the rainforests, the London and Madrid bombings, 9-11, al-Qeida, the Lebanon conflict, Palestine-Israel. and Iranian nuclear development. He's probaly responsible for England being 1 down in the Test match, too!You are, purposely I suspect, totally missing the point Spider.

The UN exists, theoretically to PREVENT bad behavior by member states, not cause it. Over its' entire history, but moreso under Kofi Annan, it has suffered from inaction in the face of evil (Paul's example), corruption and coverup that makes the congress look like rank amateurs, sex scandals that make Congressman Foley look like an angel.

The UN under Annan and his cohorts has failed to prevent nuclear proliferation in Iran, India and Pakistan, and North Korea, just to name a few; they failed to prevent or to stop genocide across Africa; they failed to address the rise of radical islamo-fascism and the violence it has unleashed including 9/11, Madrid, London, Mumbai and elsewhere; they failed to hold Iraq and other nations accountable for basic human rights let alone obligations under UN negotiated ceasefires.

I might agree that the ends justifies the mean if the ends are good, but the ends are a record of abysmal failure on a GLOBAL scale, and the means are unfortunately a similarly abysmal record of corruption, self-preservation, obstruction of justice, and the blood of millions.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

I think he's a crook. :mad:

You are, purposely I suspect, totally missing the point Spider.....No, I don't believe I am missing the point, John. In fact, I think I'm the only one who's sticking to the point.

Yours, and the other posts so far, are highly critical of the UN. Yet the point of the original post was Kofi Annan.

It is clear that you all expected more of the UN. But that is the nations that make up the United Nations, and in particular, the nations that make up the Security Council. That isn't Kofi Annan.

I am trying not to discuss the record of the UN because that isn't what this is about - that isn't the point. This is about one man.

Your post starts off, John - ..The UN exists, theoretically to PREVENT bad behavior by member states.. That's the UN's job (or part of it.) That's not the Secretary General's job. Any failure of that job cannot be laid on the Secretary General.

If you'all want to discuss and moan about the UN, that's fine by me. I'm ready to join with you on that. But any failing you may find in the UN is not a failing of the Secretary General. So don't tell me about Iraq or Iran or Korea or Rwanda or Darfur. That's the province of the Security Council and what the Security Council does or does not do has very little to do with Kofi Annan.