The Kofi Annan Hypocrisy Agenda

Joshua Korosi said:


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?
Click to expand...

The UN formed to create peace. All the UN needs is a secretary general that has the balls to tell a country that was ordered by the UN 56 times over 12 years to disarm or face war.

Annan couldn't get the job done. Marxist appeasement.

JK
 
Jedi Knight said:


The UN formed to create peace. All the UN needs is a secretary general that has the balls to tell a country that was ordered by the UN 56 times over 12 years to disarm or face war.

Annan couldn't get the job done. Marxist appeasement.

JK
Click to expand...

Annan didn't have the authority to give such an order. Rule by democratic committee.
 
Crossbow said:
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.
Click to expand...

I worked for the UN in humanitarian actions--as a warrior, of course.

The UN has one mission--the implementation of peace even if there needs to be war to achieve that peace. That is why the UN Security Council formed institutionally. The problem is that the UN Security Council has been perverted. Peace is not gained via appeasement. That is the flaw of the UN body as it seeks to redefine itself into a Marxist global leadership cell.

56 UN resolutions flowed through the UN and Annan has been negligent on his watch and caused the new Iraqi war. If he would have rallied UN support, instead of rallying appeasement, Iraq may not have had direct combat action taken against it.

So my question to you is what did the 56 UN resolutions calling for Iraq to disarm over the last twelve years do for peace? What?!

You and Joshua conveniently ignore that truth.

Not a problem. Annan needs to be replaced by someone who is genuinely concerned with international security and the rights and freedom of men, not Marxist socialist slavery and appeasement.

JK
 
What if Annan had told Iraq to disarm or face war...but when the time came, the Security Council voted against war anyway? Annan would come off looking pretty stupid.

Besides, do you think Annan "rallying" for war would've changed France's and Germany's opinion on the issue?
 
Joshua Korosi said:


Annan didn't have the authority to give such an order. Rule by democratic committee.
Click to expand...

That is BS. Annan told the United States that we were "on our own" with the humanitarian crisis in Iraq. You know, "payback" for acting on the 56 failed resolutions on Annan's watch. That is laughable. What, is Annan really that stupid to think we would have waited another 12 years and 112 resolutions?

So Annan is spineless when it comes to advocating what needs to be done against dangerous nation-states that go against peace and when Annan doesn't get his way he whines and threatens to ensure the UN won't assist those that seek to implement peace.

See the leftist hypocrisy in your definition of UN purpose?

JK
 
Jedi Knight said:


That is BS. Annan told the United States that we were "on our own" with the humanitarian crisis in Iraq. You know, "payback" for acting on the 56 failed resolutions on Annan's watch.
Click to expand...


Nice spin.

No, Annan has told the United States that he will not allow the UN humanitarian workers to enter Iraq until the war has ended. What good is the aid if all the UN workers get blown to pieces in the crossfire?
 
Joshua Korosi said:
What if Annan had told Iraq to disarm or face war...but when the time came, the Security Council voted against war anyway? Annan would come off looking pretty stupid.

Besides, do you think Annan "rallying" for war would've changed France's and Germany's opinion on the issue?
Click to expand...

No, Annan should have done the right thing and the US would have stood with him. It doesn't matter what the UN Security Council votes. You have countries on the council that have always been mortal enemies of the United States since the UN was formed.

What Annan needed to do was express will. Votes are meaningless if you do not have the political will to stand behind what needs to be done.

Lead, follow or get out of the way. That is what happened with the Iraqi crisis. 56 resolutions went through the UN. The US asked for leadership. None come from Annan. So then the US asked for help. We got that help from coalition allies who understand the dangerousness of the Hussein regime.

Annan didn't lead and he didn't follow because he had to get out of the way. That was the third phase of his failed leadership. He got out of the way because the US laughed at his impotence and brought war to disarm Iraq. The US is merely acting on the 56 resolutions that Annan lacked the spine to enforce.

Annan had no choice but to get out of the way, because real leadership stepped up. It would be nice to have some of that leadership at the secretary general position, but that's life.

JK
 
Joshua Korosi said:



Nice spin.

No, Annan has told the United States that he will not allow the UN humanitarian workers to enter Iraq until the war has ended. What good is the aid if all the UN workers get blown to pieces in the crossfire?
Click to expand...

Annan said the US is on its own. "Payback" for freeing the Iraqis.

Explain to me how the UN didn't force this war between Iraq and the United States under Annan's leadership. There were 56 resolutions weighed against Iraq.

What was Annan thinking?!? :eek: Is Annan working to subvert the national security of the free world? I think he is.

JK
 
Jedi Knight said:


No, Annan should have done the right thing and the US would have stood with him. It doesn't matter what the UN Security Council votes. You have countries on the council that have always been mortal enemies of the United States since the UN was formed.
Click to expand...

Jedi, you know that's complete nonsense. What do you mean, "it doesn't matter what the Security Council votes"? If the council votes "no war", then Annan can "stand with" the United States all he wants - the UN will not go to war. Why is this so hard to understand?
 
Jedi Knight said:


...

56 UN resolutions flowed through the UN and Annan has been negligent on his watch and caused the new Iraqi war. If he would have rallied UN support, instead of rallying appeasement, Iraq may not have had direct combat action taken against it.

...

JK
Click to expand...

OK then JK, I guess that is your real issue.

If Kofi Annan would have been willing to attack Iraq some years ago,
Then the current war would no be happening now.

Perhaps you are right.
Perhaps you are wrong.

Since you are so good at following current affairs and you are so knowledge about history please check for yourself to see if someone who would do what you request would be elected as the UN Secretary-General.

Could such a person be elected?
 
Joshua Korosi said:


Jedi, you know that's complete nonsense. What do you mean, "it doesn't matter what the Security Council votes"? If the council votes "no war", then Annan can "stand with" the United States all he wants - the UN will not go to war. Why is this so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

It comes back to doing what is right. Did the US go to war without the blessing of the UN security council? Yep. Why is that?

Could it be that the UN Security Council could work against US national security interests? Yep. Why would they do that? Could it be that they want to see this country destroyed? Yep.

That is why it was important for Annan to say one sentence expressing support for the US but he was spineless.

What has the UN done for "peace" in Iraq?

JK
 
Crossbow said:


OK then JK, I guess that is your real issue.

If Kofi Annan would have been willing to attack Iraq some years ago,
Then the current war would no be happening now.

Perhaps you are right.
Perhaps you are wrong.

Since you are so good at following current affairs and you are so knowledge about history please check for yourself to see if someone who would do what you request would be elected as the UN Secretary-General.

Could such a person be elected?
Click to expand...

That doesn't matter. What matters is doing what is right. I could care less about elections. That is selfish.

The UN played games for twelve years with Iraq under Annan's leadership. US and coalition troops are now fighting for their very lives there trying to free the Iraqi people.

Something broken in the UN caused that to happen. It needs to be fixed.

JK
 
Jedi Knight said:


That doesn't matter. What matters is doing what is right. I could care less about elections. That is selfish.

The UN played games for twelve years with Iraq under Annan's leadership. US and coalition troops are now fighting for their very lives there trying to free the Iraqi people.

Something broken in the UN caused that to happen. It needs to be fixed.

JK
Click to expand...

12 years huh?

Well, I find that quite interesting since Annan has only held his current job for about six years and four months!

Here is a hint: his title became offical on January 1, 1997.
 
Crossbow said:


12 years huh?

Well, I find that quite interesting since Annan has only held his current job for about six years and four months!

Here is a hint: his title became offical on January 1, 1997.
Click to expand...

lol, you had to one-star my thread. That will "fix it".

JK
 
Jedi Knight said:


lol, you had to one-star my thread. That will "fix it".

JK
Click to expand...

One-star your thread? I take you are referring to the thread rating system.

If so, then do not worry about me because I have never rated a thread. Sometimes I cast a vote in the polls, but I have never rated a thread.

By the way, did you really believe that Kofi Annan had been in charge of the UN for the last 12 years?

And what about those 56 resolutions you mentioned? Do you have any more data on those?

Thanks much!
 
Re: Re: The Kofi Annan Hypocrisy Agenda

PygmyPlaidGiraffe said:


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.
Click to expand...

How about it JK? You up for the challenge of defending the claim you made?
 
JK vs JK. Amusing.

I admire your tenacity Joshua, but it should be clear to you by now that the Martian has a shield impervious to facts. Any fact which doesn't fit in his worldview, simply doesn't get through. Impressive defensive capabilities.

Unfortunately for him, he has no offensive capabilities. Nothing but blanks being fired. While skimming through this thread, I counted at least 3 Martian "facts" which weren't. And I'm not counting the blanks you pointed out.

Like "Frasier", I admire the Martian's ability to entertain, simply by being foolish.
 
DanishDynamite said:
JK vs JK. Amusing.

I admire your tenacity Joshua, but it should be clear to you by now that the Martian has a shield impervious to facts. Any fact which doesn't fit in his worldview, simply doesn't get through. Impressive defensive capabilities.

Unfortunately for him, he has no offensive capabilities. Nothing but blanks being fired. While skimming through this thread, I counted at least 3 Martian "facts" which weren't. And I'm not counting the blanks you pointed out.

Like "Frasier", I admire the Martian's ability to entertain, simply by being foolish.
Click to expand...

Well leftist, what have you contributed? In fact, what has your country contributed? Nada.

The UN failed...again. Yet again. Annan should resign. Twelve years of Iraqi protectionism by UN Marxists capped off with an unqualified chief weapons inspector.

Somebody tell me what the UN did for "peace" in Iraq. I have asked that question for the entire length of this thread and everyone is avoiding it. What has the UN done for peace in Iraq? :eek:

JK
 
Jedi Knight said:


Well leftist, what have you contributed? In fact, what has your country contributed? Nada.

The UN failed...again. Yet again. Annan should resign. Twelve years of Iraqi protectionism by UN Marxists capped off with an unqualified chief weapons inspector.

Somebody tell me what the UN did for "peace" in Iraq. I have asked that question for the entire length of this thread and everyone is avoiding it. What has the UN done for peace in Iraq? :eek:

JK
Click to expand...
Well, rightist, what have you contributed? In fact, what has your country contributed?

What are you talking about? Contributions to what?

Regarding the UN, Joshua has already pointed out your misunderstandings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom