The Kofi Annan Hypocrisy Agenda

[Jedi Knight]

Kofi Annan is quite the character. Here is the guy who has a security detail to protect him that is more heavily armed than the President of the United States' security detachment. Annan has teams of covert soldiers carrying MP-4's that surround him if he moves three feet beyond any building or structure that doesn't have a "UN" logo attached to it.

Now, since he loves heavily armed men who protect him day and night, one would probably think that he understands the dangerousness of the world. But no. When it comes to US national security, the icon of the UN has US national security on the back-burner, in favor of Marxist socialist causes that have no basis in reality.

The "king" of the UN stood idly by when France and Germany began their anti-American rhetoric as the United States prepared to deal with the terror state of Iraq. Annan allowed the UN to take a life of its own against the US, tossing aside the potential freedom of the Iraqi people to protect Saddam Hussein.

Do we need an impotent Marxist at the helm of the UN? A man who so quickly walked away from the Iraqi people as Americans prepared to risk their lives to free them?

Now, what is really laughable, is that Annan whined recently that it would be America who would have to pay for all of the Iraqi rebuilding and the UN wouldn't get involved. So in other words, Annan said: "You dare to free the Iraqi people?!? How dare you! The UN will not help those you free!!!"

That is what Annan said.

Then France, unbelievably, stuck their selfish noses in it and said: "We want to come into Iraq and get the rebuilding contracts."

Uh, hello?!?!?!?! France is joking, right?

As the heroic capitalists George W. Bush and Tony Blair give their press conference today, it becomes clear that the UN is a Marxist focus group filled with people who do not understand what the UN charter is about--the very basic foundation of what the democratic ancestors who created the UN envisioned.

Bush is the next Abraham Lincoln and Blair is the next Winston Churchill. By taking action against Iraq, these two heroes have once again carried the world forward in the name of freedom, casting off the evil that penetrated nearly all UN institutions. That evil is closet-Marxism, seeking to grab a global foothold over all the free peoples of the world and a potential terror organization as proved by its willingness to cast off the dreams of freedom that tens of millions of Iraqis had as they looked to the UN to free them.

Annan should bow his head in shame and resign so a man for the vision of global freedom can step forward and take his place.

JK

 

[Richard G]

We need to kick their asses out of N.Y., and let them go set up shop in some 3rd world toilet.

 

[Q-Source]

As usual, your comments are....brilliant and insightful

Seriously Jedi, if Kofi Annan is a closet-marxist, how is it possible that he is still in the UN?

Of course, the USA has to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq, what did you expect?

Some of the money that you people pay in taxes will be used to finance Iraq.

...and some of your money will go straight to the French companies that get the contracts

 

[Richard G]

There is more than enough oil in Iraq to pay for any, and all reconstruction efforts. And that is what you will see happen.

 

[Checkmite]

Jedi, perhaps your anger stems from a misunderstanding of UN procedure, and the way things work there. The Secretary-General simply does not have the power to do what you suggest - no matter who he is.

The Secretary-General of the UN does not attend or chair the Security Council (which is where the misunderstandings between France and the US took place). He most often chairs the General Assembly. Aside from what he reads in the ambassadors' reports, the rare occasions when he comes to speak, and from what he may catch on TV, the Secretary-General is mostly unaware of the minutae of particular Security Council sessions, and is typically only concerned with the resolutions that body churns out. There is a "president" of the Security Council who is in charge - but his position is rotated amongst the Security Council nations.

Perhaps a comparison to the US House of Representatives is in order. The Secretary-General is "in charge" of the United Nations as a whole, so to speak - much as the Speaker of the House is "in charge" of the House as a whole. The Security Council would be like one of several House committees, each composed only of certain members. The various committees meet, and the Speaker of the House is informed of any decisions or recommendations they might make - but doesn't always sit through their meetings.

If the representatives from Illinois are really trying to get a bill passed, yet keep getting voted down by the representatives from Montana, the Speaker of the House cannot "punish" or "prevent" the Montanan representatives from doing this. The reps are expected to work things out and come to a comprimise.

The Secretary-General is not a babysitter who keeps after the member nations, nor is he a king who has the authority to punish particular members for not playing along.

And, by the way, the United Nations cannot be forced to pay for the damage of an attack it didn't condone. The U.S. can't blow the hell out of whomever it likes, and then command someone else to clean up the mess - it's just not right. The United Nations has agreed to provide humanitarian aid, but cannot until the war is over.

 

[Q-Source]

Excellent post Joshua.

You have a very clear idea of what's going on.

Regards,

Q

 

[Jedi Knight]

Excellent post Joshua.

You have a very clear idea of what's going on.

Regards,

Q

Appeal to popularity logic fallacy.

JK

 

[Q-Source]

Appeal to popularity logic fallacy.

Jedi,

Instead of telling me that I made a logic fallacy, why don't you respond to Joshua's post?

 

[Jedi Knight]

Jedi, perhaps your anger stems from a misunderstanding of UN procedure, and the way things work there. The Secretary-General simply does not have the power to do what you suggest - no matter who he is.

The Secretary-General of the UN does not attend or chair the Security Council (which is where the misunderstandings between France and the US took place). He most often chairs the General Assembly. Aside from what he reads in the ambassadors' reports, the rare occasions when he comes to speak, and from what he may catch on TV, the Secretary-General is mostly unaware of the minutae of particular Security Council sessions, and is typically only concerned with the resolutions that body churns out. There is a "president" of the Security Council who is in charge - but his position is rotated amongst the Security Council nations.

Perhaps a comparison to the US House of Representatives is in order. The Secretary-General is "in charge" of the United Nations as a whole, so to speak - much as the Speaker of the House is "in charge" of the House as a whole. The Security Council would be like one of several House committees, each composed only of certain members. The various committees meet, and the Speaker of the House is informed of any decisions or recommendations they might make - but doesn't always sit through their meetings.

If the representatives from Illinois are really trying to get a bill passed, yet keep getting voted down by the representatives from Montana, the Speaker of the House cannot "punish" or "prevent" the Montanan representatives from doing this. The reps are expected to work things out and come to a comprimise.

The Secretary-General is not a babysitter who keeps after the member nations, nor is he a king who has the authority to punish particular members for not playing along.

And, by the way, the United Nations cannot be forced to pay for the damage of an attack it didn't condone. The U.S. can't blow the hell out of whomever it likes, and then command someone else to clean up the mess - it's just not right. The United Nations has agreed to provide humanitarian aid, but cannot until the war is over.

The power flows in the UN have got nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am talking about UN corruption that is rooted in all its institutions to benefit Marxist causes.

The UN, under the leadership of Annan, tried to subvert US national security policy from day one as the US was dealing with the Iraqi crisis.

Annan makes his position clear when he speaks in the leftist media. He is very open about his Marxist agenda.

The point I was making is that beyond humanitarian actions, the UN is worthless and has no business even commenting on US national security actions. Those nation-states that have not sided with the US are out. They are out. France is out. Germany is out.

When the US finishes the war, the UN will go into Iraq and do the only thing they are capable of doing with any degree of competence--provide humanitarian assistance. The US will foot the bill--I never disputed that--because the US funds almost the entire UN. That is nothing new.

Just don't say Annan and the other Marxists in the UN have valid opinions about US national security. They don't and that is why Annan should resign in shame. The free world needs a capitalist as Secretary General, not a commie.

JK

 

[Jedi Knight]

Jedi,

Instead of telling me that I made a logic fallacy, why don't you respond to Joshua's post?

Well hon, 60 words per minute isn't good enough for you?

As the busy-body you are you didn't even give me a chance to reply to Joshua's post before you Ogressed into this thread and started chick trouble with it.

JK

 

[Jedi Knight]

Come on Q. Get all your chick-pals like Renata to come over here and Ogress me. Make your non-contribution.

JK

 

[Crossbow]

To: Joshua Korosi

That was a great post you wrote about how the UN actually works.

You know your stuff!

 

[Q-Source]

Come on Q. Get all your chick-pals like Renata to come over here and Ogress me. Make your non-contribution.

JK

Did you really read my post in Banter?

I said that I did not agree with her opinion about trolling.
I find your reference to me very offensive and disappointing. I have always treated you with respect even though we have different opinions.

I am going to ask you to do the same.

 

[Checkmite]

The power flows in the UN have got nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am talking about UN corruption that is rooted in all its institutions to benefit Marxist causes.

The UN, under the leadership of Annan, tried to subvert US national security policy from day one as the US was dealing with the Iraqi crisis.

Annan makes his position clear when he speaks in the leftist media. He is very open about his Marxist agenda.

The point I was making is that beyond humanitarian actions, the UN is worthless and has no business even commenting on US national security actions. Those nation-states that have not sided with the US are out. They are out. France is out. Germany is out.

When the US finishes the war, the UN will go into Iraq and do the only thing they are capable of doing with any degree of competence--provide humanitarian assistance. The US will foot the bill--I never disputed that--because the US funds almost the entire UN. That is nothing new.

Just don't say Annan and the other Marxists in the UN have valid opinions about US national security. They don't and that is why Annan should resign in shame. The free world needs a capitalist as Secretary General, not a commie.

JK

That the current Secretary-General may have Marxist leanings means nothing. Unlike the President of the United States, the Secretary-General cannot issue "executive orders" or veto resolutions reached by the body. As the chief and most visible representative of the United Nations, Annan has the responsibility first and foremost to speak for peace, regardless of the situation, as that is the spirit and purpose of the United Nations organization. If the Security Council voted to support the war, then such support would be extended regardless of the Secretary-General's personal political or ethical views; and indeed, Annan would have modified his public statements to reflect support. He cannot influence the member nations to do anything or vote any certain way. Having a capitalist as Secretary-General wouldn't have made a difference. The capitalist Secretary-General would still be required to assert peace above all, as the UN charter mandates.

As far as the Secretary-General commenting on or attempting to dictate US national security policy, I don't see where this has happened. Remember, the UN's job is not to advance US national security - that is the US's job. The UN's job is to advance the cause of peace for all of its members - and this may place it at odds with this or that member nation. As far as current events goes, Annan has pleaded for a quick end to the war so that the UN can get to the business of humanitarian assistance - which is, as you say, the only thing the UN can do with consistent success. He has not called on members to "boycott" or "sanction" the United States. He has not taken any measures against the US at all.

That the Iraq situation was brought up in the Security Council is nothing subversive; one way or another, the situation was a threat to the peace of several member nations, which the United Nations is obligated to protect inasmuch as it is able under the charter. Indeed, the US had no problem using this avenue to attempt to achieve its ends; only when it was clear that there was significant opposition did the US withdraw from that channel. That France or Germany refused to jump at the possibility of conflict may relegate them to the realm of insignificance or even give them threat status in your eyes should not reflect on the United Nations as a whole, nor Kofi Annan who couldn't have done anything about it anyway.

 

[Jedi Knight]

That the current Secretary-General may have Marxist leanings means nothing. Unlike the President of the United States, the Secretary-General cannot issue "executive orders" or veto resolutions reached by the body. As the chief and most visible representative of the United Nations, Annan has the responsibility first and foremost to speak for peace, regardless of the situation, as that is the spirit and purpose of the United Nations organization. If the Security Council voted to support the war, then such support would be extended regardless of the Secretary-General's personal political or ethical views; and indeed, Annan would have modified his public statements to reflect support. He cannot influence the member nations to do anything or vote any certain way. Having a capitalist as Secretary-General wouldn't have made a difference. The capitalist Secretary-General would still be required to assert peace above all, as the UN charter mandates.

As far as the Secretary-General commenting on or attempting to dictate US national security policy, I don't see where this has happened. Remember, the UN's job is not to advance US national security - that is the US's job. The UN's job is to advance the cause of peace for all of its members - and this may place it at odds with this or that member nation. Remember, it was under Kofi Annan's secretaryship that Kuwait obtained succor from the UN when it was invaded in 1990. As far as current events goes, Annan has pleaded for a quick end to the war so that the UN can get to the business of humanitarian assistance - which is, as you say, the only thing the UN can do with consistent success. He has not called on members to "boycott" or "sanction" the United States. He has not taken any measures against the US at all.

That the Iraq situation was brought up in the Security Council is nothing subversive; one way or another, the situation was a threat to the peace of several member nations, which the United Nations is obligated to protect inasmuch as it is able under the charter. Indeed, the US had no problem using this avenue to attempt to achieve its ends; only when it was clear that there was significant opposition did the US withdraw from that channel. That France or Germany refused to jump at the possibility of conflict may relegate them to the realm of insignificance or even give them threat status in your eyes should not reflect on the United Nations as a whole, nor Kofi Annan who couldn't have done anything about it anyway.

Joshua, you must have missed every policy that oozed out of the UN in the last twelve years. You seem to be pretty articulate and I appreciate that, but your understanding of UN politics is radically incorrect.

In 1991, the US formulated a cease-fire plan with Iraq based upon a series of conditions that Iraq was forced to agree to. One of the main conditions was that Iraq disarm those weapons that could threaten other countries, especially his neighbors. The US applied this standard to Iraq because Saddam used agression against his neighbors. We just didn't "show up" in Kuwait and line the Iraqis up and shoot all of them. Iraq caused us to deploy there.

There have been 56 resolutions shot through the UN since then about the Iraqi problem, the most recent being the selection of Hans Blix as Chief Weapons Inspector. Blix was number 25 on a rather lengthy list of those selected to do the job. The first 24 candidates were disapproved by the UN body not because of qualifications to do the job, but because of Iraqi protectionism.

Days before the US penetration of Iraq, Hans Blix strutted around on TV and claimed: "We have found no evidence of any weapons violations". Days later Iraq is firing missiles at Kuwait which completely violate the very standard that Blix was sent to Iraq to evaluate.

In the meantime, France and Germany promised to veto any second resolution on the use of force against Iraq without thinking clearly about the implications to global national security. Annan was right behind the rhetoric, threatening the United States that the UN would "pull out" of any action against the Iraqi leader.

The UN is supposed to infuence peace. I completely agree with you. Now tell me, after 56 failed UN resolutions to put Iraq's feet to the fire regarding their weapons, what else could the UN possibly do to prove they are a waste of resources? Annan failed. You say that he should sit back and act like a "secretary general". That is laughable. That is advising for the "status quo".

The United States had twelve years of the status quo. We had it forced down our throats. Twelve years and the UN couldn't do anything about Iraq because they didn't want to take any action against Iraq. Iraq is a utopia socialist state, the product of the global UN agenda. Attacking Iraq is attacking the very system that the UN elite wants to put in place globally.

As Secretary General of the United Nations, Annan can certainly take a position and his position should have been to stand with the United States. When you are put in place to lead, either lead or get out of the way. There was no "peace" flowing out of Iraq with the current UN policy. The UN policy with Iraq was a perversion and a failed policy. It was the protection of a terror state.

We can look at a state like Iraq and want "peace" and not attack it, but is that peace? Is it? Is it peace when we do not take action against agressor states and allow them to mass-produce weapons of mass destruction while they interact with Al Qaeda?

Annan's policy against Iraq was simple. Ignore Saddam and hopefully he would go away. That was the UN policy.

In the real world, you do not ignore men like Saddam Hussein. When you ignore them, you appear to be weak to men like him and they will cause more wars and destruction. They will undermine peace. The UN is for creating peace. The US action in Iraq is creating peace by taking direct military action against a regime that is anti-peace.

That is why Annan has to go. He is in the way of a peaceful world and doesn't understand the global security dilemma. The leader of the UN can't ignore regimes like Iraq while they churn out ballistic missiles, nerve agent and nuclear weapons.

To do so, is that "peace"? What did the 56 resolutions against Iraq in the last twelve years do for "peace"?

JK

 

[Checkmite]

You still don't get it. It doesn't matter how much Annan is "against" the US-led war in Iraq - he simply does not have the authority to commit the UN to a course of action. He cannot begin a war against Iraq. He cannot stop a war against Iraq. He cannot "pull the UN out of a military action" against Iraq. He does not make policy for the UN. The Secretary-General cannot make policy for the UN.

Certainly, Annan can take a "position" on an issue...but that position is not official UN policy, and is absolutely meaningless. You seem to regard the Secretary-General as some kind of "ruler" or "president" who can command, and that's simply not true. The UN's policy may have been to "ignore" Saddam - but that isn't because of Annan, it's because the majority of the member nations chose that policy. In order to get that policy "changed", you would have to change the opinions of the governments of the member countries.

As far as your opinions as to Saddam's being a threat to peace, or military action being the only possibly way - I am not arguing the politics of the issue. My point is, you are blaming the Secretary-General for doing and not doing things that are simply not in his authority to do or not-do.

 

[Jedi Knight]

You still don't get it. It doesn't matter how much Annan is "against" the US-led war in Iraq - he simply does not have the authority to commit the UN to a course of action. He cannot begin a war against Iraq. He cannot stop a war against Iraq. He cannot "pull the UN out of a military action" against Iraq. He does not make policy for the UN. The Secretary-General cannot make policy for the UN.

Certainly, Annan can take a "position" on an issue...but that position is not official UN policy, and is absolutely meaningless. You seem to regard the Secretary-General as some kind of "ruler" or "president" who can command, and that's simply not true. The UN's policy may have been to "ignore" Saddam - but that isn't because of Annan, it's because the majority of the member nations chose that policy. In order to get that policy "changed", you would have to change the opinions of the governments of the member countries.

As far as your opinions as to Saddam's being a threat to peace, or military action being the only possibly way - I am not arguing the politics of the issue. My point is, you are blaming the Secretary-General for doing and not doing things that are simply not in his authority to do or not-do.

I am not blaming Annan for being who he is. He is an appeaser of Marxism and socialism. He is the secretary general of the United Nations. He could stand in front of the world body, which he does regularly, and explain the justness of the US action. He has yet to do so. He could explain why it is happening so that peace can be secured.

You are trying to shelter him unnaturally with your continued references to how informal he is as a leader. Annan is not an informal leader. He is a very formal leader, but his selective influence works against US national security policy. The United Nations postured against the United States as it sought to finalize dealing with Iraq recently and that was a very grave mistake.

The point to all this is that the UN does not have the will to protect freedom and manage global threats. Annan knows better than that. He should simply know better. Global history proves time and again that when you appease dangerous megalomanics like Saddam Hussein, peace and security begins to unravel globally. Fifty-six resolutions at the UN couldn't resolve the Iraqi problem in twelve years, and the secretary general had nothing to say on behalf of the United States as we sent our boys over there to clean that mess up. It is outrageous.

It is time for some leadership changes at the UN because it is an impotent organization. I say that because I do "get it".

JK

 

[Checkmite]

It is time for some leadership changes at the UN because it is an impotent organization. I say that because I do "get it".

JK

Ah, the crux of the matter. You want the UN to be an organization with more "bite", or power to enforce its own resolutions.

Let's play an hypothetical game. Pretend that the UN General Assembly has passed a resolution that small firearms (pistols and sawed-off shot guns, for instance), with the exception of those owned by militaries and police forces, are banned from all member states, and any such weapons as exist must be destroyed. Should the UN be able to force the President - and through him, the People - of the United States to disarm? If the United States refuses, would military action be justified to enforce the UN resolution?

 

[Crossbow]

I am always amazed at the comments made by those who do not understand how the UN functions.

They seem to think that the UN has the power to collect its own funds and raise its own armies and do whatever it wants to do whenever it wants to; but it just ain't so.

The UN is dependent upon donations from member nations. It does not collect its own taxes nor raise its own funds.

The UN Forces are staffed by military forces from the member states who have not relinquished command of these forces. The member states have to power to countermand any UN orders and they can pack-up and go home whenever they like.

The UN makes all of its decisions through consensus since it has no enforcement ability of its own. The real reason why most countries adhere to UN Resolutions, is because it is in their best interest to comply, it is not because of any UN enforcement powers.

Ugh!

Some people have no appreciation for facts and logic and they just do not get it.

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Bush is the next Abraham Lincoln and Blair is the next Winston Churchill.

JK

Please give a detailed outline of your thesis that demonstrates that:

- the personal lives and careers of
- events and challenges in the lives of
- qualities and character of
- folk stories and myths attributed to

Lincoln and Churchill parallel Bush and Blair respectively.