Support NeoGAF

[xexex]

UN staff are expected to make an unprecedented vote of no confidence in Secretary-General Kofi Annan, union sources say, after a series of scandals tainted his term in charge of the world body.

The UN staff union, in what officials said was the first vote of its kind in the almost 60-year history of the United Nations, was set to approve a resolution withdrawing support for Annan and senior UN management.

Annan has been in the line of fire over a series of scandals including controversy about a UN aid program that investigators say allowed deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to embezzle billions of dollars.

Staffers said the trigger for the no-confidence measure was an announcement this week that Annan had pardoned the UN's top oversight official, who was facing allegations of favouritism and sexual harassment.

The union had requested a formal probe into the official, Dileep Nair, after employees accused him of harassing staff and violating UN rules on the hiring and promotion of workers.

Top UN spokesman Fred Eckhard announced on Tuesday that Nair had been exonerated by Annan "after a thorough review" by the UN's senior official in charge of management, Catherine Bertini.

Annan underlined that he "had every confidence" in Nair, Eckhard said, but UN employees ridiculed the decision and claimed that investigators had not questioned the staff union, which first raised the complaints in April.

"This was a whitewash, pure and simple," Guy Candusso, a senior member of the staff union, told AFP.

Candusso noted that Eckhard's declaration to the press had said that "no further action was necessary in the matter."

But in a letter sent to the union, a copy of which was obtained by AFP, Annan's chief of staff Iqbal Riza said Nair had been "advised that he should exercise caution" in future to "minimize the risk of negative perception."

In a resolution set to be adopted on Friday, the union said Riza's statement "substantiates the contention of the staff that there was impropriety" and that there exists "a lack of integrity, particularly at the higher levels of the organisation."

The draft resolution, also obtained by AFP, calls on the union president to "convey this vote of no confidence to the secretary general."

Staffers who asked not to be named, afraid that speaking out could damage their future in the United Nations, said the Nair decision was an example of corruption by Annan and his senior staff.

They noted that Riza, UN undersecretary general for information Shashi Tharoor and other top officials had served directly under Annan at least since 1994, when he was head of UN peacekeeping operations.

At the time, the United Nations was widely criticized for failing to stop the Rwanda genocide that left 800,000 people dead, even though UN peacekeepers were on the ground -- a catastrophe for which Annan has publicly apologized.

Annan could not be reached for immediate comment. He is currently in Africa on a mission aimed at ending the long-running civil war in Sudan.

But he faces unprecedented calls to resign over the burgeoning scandal about "oil-for-food," a UN aid scheme that US investigators say allowed Saddam to siphon off billions of dollars.

The program has tainted UN officials like Benon Sevan, who oversaw the operation and is now accused of pocketing Saddam's money in exchange for turning a blind eye to the Iraqi dictator's abuses.

Annan stands accused of obstructing US investigators, especially since his hand-picked official Paul Volcker this week rejected calls from the US Senate to turn over documents from the program and waive UN staff immunity.

Eckhard, his spokesman, on Thursday said that Annan is expected to serve out his term, which ends in 2006.

Veteran UN staff said this was the first time that employees had risen up to make a vote of no confidence in a sitting secretary general.

"Kofi Annan is surrounded by corruption, a gang of criminals responsible for some of the worst things that happened to mankind in the 20th century," said one angry staffer, referring to the Rwanda massacres.

"It's possible that he doesn't know directly what has gone on," said the employee, who has worked for the United Nations for two decades. "But that's no excuse."

I'm taking over soon

 

[MrPing1000]

heh bill at the head of the UN wud roxxor

 

[luxsol]

Holy shit, just like in the Phantom Menance!

 

[Socreges]

heh bill at the head of the UN wud roxxor

I think so.

And isn't the UN stationed in New York, where Hilary is Senator?

 

[MrPing1000]

I think so.

And isn't the UN stationed in New York, where Hilary is Senator?

Thats handy as well. Then in 4 years she can get a plane up to DC

 

[jiggle]

heh bill at the head of the UN wud roxxor

indeed.

 

[DarienA]

My only comment is what took them so f'n long?

 

[Dan]

Holy shit, just like in the Phantom Menance!

Haha, first thing I thought of too.

 

[PS2 KID]

The UN's corruption make Enron and Worldcom look like saints. Their inability to handle situations of war, peace keeping, mass murder and genocide makes Executive Outcomes, while they existed, look like Toyota quality assurance engineers.

Frankly, I just want to kick them out of New York. Let some other state or country have them. Clinton as Secretary General would be interesting. Bill would at least be entertaining.

 

[Ripclawe]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139109,00.html

UNITED NATIONS — A union representing United Nations (search) staff has voted "no confidence" in senior management but stopped short of singling out Secretary-General Kofi Annan (search).

The vote is largely symbolic and has no effect over any U.N. officials' jobs. But it isn’t a good sign for the top leaders' effectiveness as heads of the world body.

It is the first time in the labor organization’s history that it has cast such a vote, which happened behind closed doors Friday afternoon at U.N. headquarters in New York.

The move was in response to a series of scandals plaguing the United Nations under Annan’s leadership.

Union members said the vote wasn’t directed at Annan but at the management of several top officials. In fact, the head of the labor organization said members actually did have confidence in Annan himself.

"We not only have confidence in him, we support him fully," said U.N. Staff Union President Rosemarie Waters on Friday after the no-confidence vote passed. "He is in a very difficult job under very difficult circumstances, but we continue to have hope that he is doing his best. We only want his senior managers to exhibit the transparency and accountability that he has prescribed for the organization."


However, the resolution, a copy of which has been obtained by FOX News, accuses Annan of several instances of mismanagement.

 

[evil ways]

 

[Sirpopopop]

The US's corruption make Enron and Worldcom look like saints. Their inability to handle situations of war, peace keeping, mass murder and genocide makes Executive Outcomes, while they existed, look like Toyota quality assurance engineers.

Frankly, I just want to kick them out of New York. Let some other state or country have them. Clinton as President would be interesting. Hilary would at least be entertaining.

I changed your quote a little bit. It's still pretty accurate.

 

[Ripclawe]

I changed your quote a little bit. It's still pretty accurate.

I thought it was America has the ability to handle situations of war, mass murder and genocide.

 

[Sirpopopop]

I thought it was America has the ability to handle situations of war, mass murder and genocide.

"Inability" also means incompetence.

But, if we were talking in terms of "ability" as in having the capacity to do something, then PS2 Kid's original statement was inaccurate. The UN has the capacity, if its member states are united in their resolve to solve all the problems you listed above.

Somehow, I think my interpretation of his statement was more accurate.

 

[PS2 KID]

Hey if you want to discuss how you find your change to my quote relevant to to the UN situation I described please do so... in another thread. This one's about the UN.

 

[Sirpopopop]

How is it relevant?

The problems you have with the UN exist within the U.S. You are more of a pollyana for "America" and its values than Ripclawe is. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy here.

So yeah... my post is about the UN. From an angle which suggests that people who tar the UN should also extend their criticism over to other organizations which function in a similar manner.

 

[xexex]

the UN is the precursor to the One World Government or the beginnings of it.
it must be removed from the United States.

 

[PS2 KID]

How is it relevant?

The problems you have with the UN exist within the U.S. You are more of a pollyana for "America" and its values than Ripclawe is. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy here.

Hey, you haven't even criticized the UN. You went straight for the US on all points I listed. Thus you're trying to derail the thread. Post something about the UN and maybe then you can make a comparison. If you want this to be a thread about the US, then you should have started another one.

So yeah... my post is about the UN. From an angle which suggests that people who tar the UN should also extend their criticism over to other organizations which function in a similar manner.

I stated the UN was completely incompetent and corrupt. completely. If you're saying the US is competely incompetent and corrupt then that's just your opinion.

 

[Socreges]

What I find foolish is that many of you genuinely dislike the UN for a variety of reasons, but largely in relation to America. The criticisms that we actually get to see only extend from that, as justifications for the already present distaste. They're often poorly developed and superficial, never defining the true problem.

Hey, you haven't even criticized the UN. You went straight for the US on all points I listed. Thus you're trying to derail the thread. Post something about the UN and maybe then you can make a comparison. If you want this to be a thread about the US, then you should have started another one.

God knows every thread stays on topic.

In fact, none do. As with any conversation, it's a natural progression for it to take on different dynamics and focuses. And with forums such as these, you can even have five discussions going on at once, with the initial topic still at hand.

 

[PS2 KID]

What I find foolish is that many of you genuinely dislike the UN for a variety of reasons, but largely in relation to America. The criticisms that we actually get to see only extend from that, as justifications for the already present distaste. They're often poorly developed and superficial, never defining the true problem.

Largely in relationship to America? How did anyting I posted have to do with a comparison between the UN and the US. I'm criticizing them based on their own failures and corruption. I think many people forget that the UN is it's own organization and don't come down hard enough on them as they would a corrupt corporation.

 

[Hitokage]

Shifting the discussion from UN actions to America's place in such matters isn't much of a derailment.

 

[Gek54]

heh bill at the head of the UN wud roxxor

*Remembers all those wealthy criminals he pardoned at the last minute before he left office*

...who else you got?

 

[PS2 KID]

Shifting the discussion from UN actions to America's place in such matters isn't much of a derailment.

It is if the UN isn't even discussed in the first place. Go straight to derailment card. :lol

 

[UltimateMarioMan]

I'm taking over soon

ALL HAIL EMPEROR CLINTON!

 

[Sirpopopop]

Hey, you haven't even criticized the UN. You went straight for the US on all points I listed. Thus you're trying to derail the thread. Post something about the UN and maybe then you can make a comparison. If you want this to be a thread about the US, then you should have started another one.

How am I derailing the thread when I'm commenting on your post?

If I was derailing the thread, I would be posting on a completely unrelated subject within this thread.

This is GAF. Threads often shift. But, my post didn't even shift the target. It was a critique of your critique of the UN. It was not a post on abortion, or the Bush twins, or something similarly unrelated.

Furthermore, why the fuck should I have to make a new post for a REPLY. I used your post in QUOTES. I MADE A REPLY TO YOUR POST. SEE THAT BIG BUTTON CALLED REPLY. THAT GIVES ME THE RIGHT TO POST A RESPONSE TO YOU.

I stated the UN was completely incompetent and corrupt. completely. If you're saying the US is competely incompetent and corrupt then that's just your opinion.

Isn't your post an opinion also? What's your point?

By the way the word you used was "inability", not the phrase completely incompetent and corrupt. But, if you want to call the UN completely incompetent and corrupt then you are surely ignoring the work of thousands of aid workers whom the UN sends abroad that no one covers who do their job with aplomb.

 

[Sirpopopop]

*Remembers all those wealthy criminals he pardoned at the last minute before he left office*

...who else you got?

You can tar most presidents with that feather if you so desire to.

 

[PS2 KID]

How am I derailing the thread when I'm commenting on your post?[

If I was derailing the thread, I would be posting on a completely unrelated subject within this thread.

Originally Posted by PS2 KID:
The US's corruption make Enron and Worldcom look like saints. Their inability to handle situations of war, peace keeping, mass murder and genocide makes Executive Outcomes, while they existed, look like Toyota quality assurance engineers.

Frankly, I just want to kick them out of New York. Let some other state or country have them. Clinton as President would be interesting. Hilary would at least be entertaining.



I changed your quote a little bit. It's still pretty accurate.

Completely unrelated to the subject matter of the thread. You didn't comment on my quote. You changed it to suit your agenda.

This is GAF. Threads often shift. But, my post didn't even shift the target. It was a critique of your critique of the UN. It was not a post on abortion, or the Bush twins, or something similarly unrelated.

It did too. Who's talking about the UN now huh?

Furthermore, why the fuck should I have to make a new post for a REPLY. I used your post in QUOTES. I MADE A REPLY TO YOUR POST. SEE THAT BIG BUTTON CALLED REPLY. THAT GIVES ME THE RIGHT TO POST A RESPONSE TO YOU.

Repeat you changed my quote to suit you agenda. You did not comment on the UN AT ALL. Not even a Bill Clinton comment. :lol

Isn't your post an opinion also? What's your point?

By the way the word you used was "inability", not the phrase completely incompetent and corrupt. But, if you want to call the UN completely incompetent and corrupt then you are surely ignoring the work of thousands of aid workers whom the UN sends abroad that no one covers who do their job with aplomb.

Hey that's your opinion and your FIRST comment about the UN. Still I doubt you read the article. Nothing negative about the UN. They must all be saints.

You are more of a pollyana for "America" and its values than Ripclawe is.

Hey I wanted this to be a discussion on the UN since most of these threads are just looked over. I'm not even defending the US. No need to label me.

 

[Socreges]

Largely in relationship to America? How did anyting I posted have to do with a comparison between the UN and the US. I'm criticizing them based on their own failures and corruption. I think many people forget that the UN is it's own organization and don't come down hard enough on them as they would a corrupt corporation.

You need to read more carefully. Your refutation was exactly what I addressed. That is, your criticisms fall under perceptually legitimate ones (though superficial), while the inspiration for you seeking these faults and exclaiming them as you do stems from America's place in the world relative to the UN.

To put it differently, I imagine you waving the American flag with one hand as you indict the UN with the other.

But, if you want to call the UN completely incompetent and corrupt then you are surely ignoring the work of thousands of aid workers whom the UN sends abroad that no one covers who do their job with aplomb.

Apparently the UN is "irrelevant" because of significant shortcomings. Never mind that these shortcomings are of considerable relevance to the US itself and the UN nonetheless is critically important to the world, even as it stands.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Completely unrelated to the subject matter of the thread. You didn't comment on my quote. You changed it to suit your agenda.

And how is changing the quote not a comment via metaphor on your post?

It did too. Who's talking about the UN now huh?

I'm glad you're able to percieve this shift. Really, I am.

Repeat you changed my quote to suit you agenda. You did not comment on the UN AT ALL. Not even a Bill Clinton comment. :lol

I changed your quote again. I spelled "qoute" correctly.

Hey that's your opinion and your FIRST comment about the UN. Still I doubt you read the article. Nothing negative about the UN. They must all be saints.

Ok... putting thoughts into my head. Nice...

The gist of the article - Kofi Annan is corrupt, UN officials are expected to make a vote of no confidence with regards to Annan.

Your post:

The UN's corruption make Enron and Worldcom look like saints. Their inability to handle situations of war, peace keeping, mass murder and genocide makes Executive Outcomes, while they existed, look like Toyota quality assurance engineers.

Frankly, I just want to kick them out of New York. Let some other state or country have them. Clinton as Secretary General would be interesting. Bill would at least be entertaining.

I could also make the assumption that you didn't read the article, just by analyzing your original post verbatim (subsequent posts were on a tangent and thus there is no need to analyze them). You went straight for the UN, when the article was discussing Kofi Annan and some members of his administration as being corrupt, and not the entire organization from TOP to BOTTOM.

You also mentioned nothing about the fact that the vote of no confidence is the "expected" outcome, and also Rip's second article points out - the vote is "symbolic" has no effect on whether or not Annan is kicked out.

Rather, you went straight to discussing a possible Annan replacement in Bill Clinton. An idea that's been kicked around numerous times in this thread.

So from your original post, what I gather is this: You didn't read the articles, but just the posts from Gaffers.

Hey I wanted this to be a discussion on the UN since most of these threads are just looked over. I'm not even defending the US. No need to label me.

Poster History.

That's all I have to say.

 

[PS2 KID]

You need to read more carefully. Your refutation was exactly what I addressed. That is, your criticisms fall under perceptually legitimate ones (though superficial), while the inspiration for you seeking these faults and exclaiming them as you do stems from America's place in the world relative to the UN.

To put it differently, I imagine you waving the American flag with one hand as you indict the UN with the other.

Oh man, another person labeling me a flag waver. I can't believe it. Must be GAF. My criticisms about the UN are legitimate because they are listed in the article and are in relation to it's corruption and incompetence.

I did not bring the US into this thread nor did I defend them at all. I want this to be a discussion based on the UN.

 

[Socreges]

Oh man, another person labeling a flag waver. I can't believe it. Must be GAF. My criticisms are legitimate because they are listed in the article and are in relation to it's corruption and incompetence.

Not quite:

Their inability to handle situations of war, peace keeping, mass murder and genocide makes Executive Outcomes, while they existed, look like Toyota quality assurance engineers.

the UN [is] completely incompetent and corrupt. completely.

To that I say:

What I find foolish is that many of you genuinely dislike the UN for a variety of reasons, but largely in relation to America. The criticisms that we actually get to see only extend from that, as justifications for the already present distaste. They're often poorly developed and superficial, never defining the true problem.

Now, you can say that your opinions and expressions here have nothing to do with your pride for the USA. But I deeply suspect otherwise. I mean, I can't read your mind. But it's easy enough to consider past posts and study behaviour (such as exaggerations) and make some pretty obvious inferences.

 

[PS2 KID]

Poster History.

That's all I have to say.

I could bring up your poster history too. However I did not bring up the US in this thread out of the blue nor did I defend them at all. Nor would I do such a thing as label you based on past posting history. I would hope you would share that courtesy. Judging from your responses that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[PS2 KID]

Not quite:
What I find foolish is that many of you genuinely dislike the UN for a variety of reasons, but largely in relation to America. The criticisms that we actually get to see only extend from that, as justifications for the already present distaste. They're often poorly developed and superficial, never defining the true problem.

Now, you can say that your opinions and expressions here have nothing to do with your pride for the USA. But I deeply suspect otherwise. I mean, I can't read your mind. But it's easy enough to study behaviour (such as exaggerations) and make some pretty obvious inferences.

Repeat after me. PS2 KID did not comment about america in this thread. Maybe I should bring corrupt foreign companies next time to compare to the UN, to avoid confusion on this matter.

If that is the case. I could say you are clearly making assumptions that have no merit based on my responses in this matter. You're guessing and making inferences on how I might feel about the US in a subtle way despite the lack of evidence. Interesting.

 

[PS2 KID]

Okay. Now with that out of the way, I wish more people would criticize the UN. It seems instead of getting hammered they are let off the hook. I won't label you.

 

[Socreges]

Repeat after me. PS2 KID did not comment about america in this thread. Maybe I should bring corrupt foreign companies next time to compare to the UN, to avoid confusion on this matter.

So I'm just going to quote myself for a third time, considering you seem to think that you not mentioning the US is at all contingent on your perceptions:

many of you genuinely dislike the UN for a variety of reasons, but largely in relation to America. The criticisms that we actually get to see only extend from that, as justifications for the already present distaste.

If that is the case. I could say you are clearly making assumptions that have no merit based on my responses in this matter. You're guessing and making inferences on how I might feel about the US in a subtle way despite the lack of evidence. Interesting.

I'm not being subtle. I'm being very direct, in fact. Read: the last five or so posts of mine. I mean, was the two hands analogy not distinct enough? Listen, it's not like I expect you to concede to anything. And it's not like I'm trying to prove anything. Because I can't. Just that:

But it's easy enough to consider past posts and study behaviour (such as exaggerations) and make some pretty obvious inferences.

I let that sit. You can continue to deny it, by all means, and everyone else can make up their own minds based on what they've read from you in this thread and in the past.

 

[Sirpopopop]

I could bring up your poster history too. However I did not bring up the US in this thread out of the blue nor did I defend them at all. Nor would I do such a thing as label you based on past posting history. I would hope you would share that courtesy. Judging from your responses that doesn't seem to be the case.

Of course not.

You've done nothing to make me amend my view of your beliefs based on your poster history. Nor does it matter whether or not you advertised those beliefs in this post. The GAF doesn't exist in a bubble, where conversations in a post are limited solely to matters contained within the original post.

 

[PS2 KID]

many of you genuinely dislike the UN for a variety of reasons, but largely in relation to America. The criticisms that we actually get to see only extend from that, as justifications for the already present distaste.

Interesting since NOTHING I have said in this thread is in relation to the US. So who are the other people you are addressing then?

Originally Posted by PS2 KID:
If that is the case. I could say you are clearly making assumptions that have no merit based on my responses in this matter. You're guessing and making inferences on how I might feel about the US in a subtle way despite the lack of evidence. Interesting.

I'm not being subtle. I'm being very direct, in fact. Read: the last five or so posts of mine. I mean, was the two hands analogy not distinct enough? Listen, it's not like I expect you to concede to anything. And it's not like I'm trying to prove anything. Because I can't. Just that:

I let that sit. You can continue to deny it, by all means, and everyone else can make up their own minds based on what they've read from you in this thread and in the past.

oh yes, you IMAGINED me a flag waver. I'll repeat this so you can read it:

I could bring up your poster history too. However I did not bring up the US in this thread out of the blue nor did I defend them at all. Nor would I do such a thing as label you based on past posting history. I would hope you would share that courtesy. Judging from your responses that doesn't seem to be the case.

but in your case it would be outright labeling.

 

[Manabanana]

The google ads are for UN flags :lol :lol :lol :lol

 

[PS2 KID]

I won't reply to the labelers anymore. I apologize for defending myself. The thread has been derailed. Please let's discuss the UN again.

 

[Socreges]

Nor does it matter whether or not you advertised those beliefs in this post. The GAF doesn't exist in a bubble, where conversations in a post are limited solely to matters contained within the original post.

I probably should have said something to such an effect at some point. PS2 KID doesn't seem to understand that.

Anyway, I've said my piece. G'night.

 

[PS2 KID]

I probably should have said something to such an effect at some point. PS2 KID doesn't seem to understand that.

Anyway, I've said my piece. G'night.

Hey if you have a beef with my beliefs start another thread. Be my guest. Label your hearts.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Pulling out the victimization card. I'm shocked. (Directed to PS2)

 

[PS2 KID]

This thread isn't the place for it. That's why I'm asking nicely that if you or anyone else have any commentary on my beliefs to start another thread for them. It's a courtesy to the rest of the forumgoers.

I would love if people actually talked about the UN without fear of being shouted down. I would think it's a relatively safe topic to critique upon with it's recent oil for food scandal and mishandling of genocidal disputes in recent years.

 

[Sirpopopop]

This thread isn't the place for it. That's why I'm asking nicely that if you or anyone else have any commentary on my beliefs to start another thread for them. It's a courtesy to the rest of the forumgoers.

No one but you is complaining about how this thread was as you call it, "derailed".

I would love if people actually talked about the UN without fear of being shouted down. I would think it's a relatively safe topic to critique upon with it's recent oil for food scandal and mishandling of genocidal disputes in recent years.

Well... key words here are "relatively safe topic". You think anyone is going to disagree with the fact that there are parts of the UN that are corrupt? What is there to discuss? For instance, you can't defend the Oil-for-Food Scandal, without making yourself look bad in the process. No, what I take issue with is the fact that many conservative GAF posters such as yourself are quick to lampoon the UN without criticizing their own government's failings on many of the same matters that the UN has failed in.

 

[PS2 KID]

Well... key words here are "relatively safe topic". You think anyone is going to disagree with the fact that there are parts of the UN that are corrupt? What is there to discuss? For instance, you can't defend the Oil-for-Food Scandal, without making yourself look bad in the process. No, what I take issue with is the fact that many conservative GAF posters such as yourself are quick to lampoon the UN without criticizing their own government's failings on many of the same matters that the UN has failed in.

Have I at any point criticized you for anything you have said regarding the UN. If you were to discuss with me the merits of the UN instead of say labeling me a conservative based on your assumptions then maybe we might have an engaging conversation. I would have hoped you would have at least pointed out where you disagreed with my beliefs instead of labeling me. What are my beliefs? Since you're so knowledgeable about them please PM me and let's put an end to that discussion.

 

[Ripclawe]

No, what I take issue with is the fact that many conservative GAF posters such as yourself are quick to lampoon the UN without criticizing their own government's failings on many of the same matters that the UN has failed in.

The UN has made itself out to be the great world entity that will bring peace and harmony to man, This is pointing out what has been said for years that its a corrupt, ineffective, worthless organization that can barely hand out food rations without screwing that up.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,175-1366745,00.html

Staff representatives adopted a resolution yesterday criticising senior management after a string of clashes during the past year with their bosses at UN headquarters. The rebellion is an embarrassment for Mr Annan, and comes as he faces intense criticism for corruption in the UN’s “Oil-for-Food” programme in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

The UN chief suffered another blow yesterday when he was forced to admit that civilian and peacekeeping personnel on UN duty in Congo had committed acts of gross misconduct.

Officials plan to make public on Monday the lurid results of their investigation into UN officials having sex with under-age local girls. Responding to staff complaints yesterday, the UN managers offered to hold talks next week with the elected president of the UN staff union, which represents thousands of UN workers and around the world.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,175-1366746,00.html

AID agencies attacked the Umited Nations Security Council yesterday for not agreeing to impose tough sanctions against the Sudanese Government if the violence in Darfur is not stopped.

Meeting away from its New York headquarters for the first time in 14 years, the Security Council adopted what Oxfam described as a weak resolution that failed to protect the 1.8 million people who have been displaced by government-sponsored violence. Brendan Cox, a spokesman for Oxfam, said: “What we desperately needed from the Nairobi meeting was urgency on Darfur.” He added: “Instead we received unanimous inaction.”

Sir Emyr Jones Parry, the British envoy to the Security Council, said that the power-sharing envisaged could be extended to all those in Sudan who feel “they are marginalised from Khartoum and have reacted against the centre”. But on Darfur, the council passed a weak resolution demanding that the Sudan Government “cease all violence and attacks, including abduction and refrain from forcible relocation of civilians”. The threat of sanctions, included in previous resolutions on Darfur, was dropped. China, which is Sudan’s biggest oil investor, Russia, Pakistan and Algeria were all against sanctions.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Find me one person on this forum who doesn't believe that you are a conservative PS2 Kid.

You can't.

Besides, why would I want to argue with a hypocrite on the "issues". You criticize me for "labeling" you, yet you label the entire UN as essentially worthless because of your gripes with Kofi Annan.

 

[Triumph]

the UN is the precursor to the One World Government or the beginnings of it.
it must be removed from the United States.

Replace UN with IMF, World Bank and WTO and a wiener is you!

And for PS2 KID, who wants us to criticize the UN: the UN is inherently flawed in that one member of the Security Council can throw a monkey wrench into anything that the rest of the body wants to do. It's also useless because it will never, ever go after the corrupt and disgusting actions of US corporations and politicians(see IMF, World Bank and WTO). You said you wanted criticism, right?

 

[PS2 KID]

Raoul Duke, Hey thanks for responding. Yes, the world is a messed up place. I better not give up hope in Humanity although the older I get the less optimistic about an eutopian future that might existed only in my youth (or vivid imagination). Then again I would have voted for SONNY from I Robot over W or Kerry. Go figure. :lol

Sirpopopop, since you made the assertion that I'm a conservative without basis of proof, the onus is not on me to prove anything, but on you to prove what you have asserted. My beliefs should not have even come into this disccussion and I feel it was very disingenuous of you to do so. Please PM me. I'm always willing to discuss privately about what you may find disagreeable with them. Let's not further discuss it here. Thank you.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Very well, here's the proof:

If that is what sells papers. Let them print all the headlines that are fit to print. If they consider Arafat 'won't be missed' and his wife a gold digger, then maybe they have written a story or two on why they think that way. If they are 'shameless' about how they promote themselves, then it's definitely not a 'hidden' agenda like other more liberal newspapers (and just cause it's hidden doesn't give them an 'aura' of objectivity either).

Still it didn't happen at the Post and the Times itself admits it's liberal bias. Maybe FortNintey is right. Not worth the paper they are printed on. I should get Newsday. Oh wait, they are being audited for their false circulation numbers.

Harping on about the New York Times. A typical gripe of conservatives.

I found this old story that was never posted here (I don't remember seeing it).

Arabs Brutally Murder Jewish Mother and Her 4 Children

and they were even nice to film it.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=61758

Strangest thing was that the press didn't cover it. I guess it's okay when Isrealis are shot execution style.

Belief that the media slants its coverage towards Palestine rather than the Israelies. Hah! Even my Jewish friends don't believe that. Yet another conservative slant on an issue.

Way past time to transform Islam into something that can coexist with the rest of the world. They can read this book,The Trouble with Islam, online. The Arabic version can be read online for free.

Belief in a Clash of Civilizations style conflict. Yet another conservative stance.

McCain/Guiliani.

No Hillary please.

Interesting how you would prefer conservative candidates for '08 rather than a liberal candidate. Perhaps because you are a conservative.

I think Bush is going to win the election, so you know what that means right?

McCain/Guiliani 2008. I will have hold it for 4 more years before we get to the real candidates.

Until then, SONNY from I ROBOT for president. Writing him in.

Jumping straight to McCain/Guiliani rather than mention anyone the Democrats can come up... HMMMMMMMMM

The Mid East is fucked up.

As Spartan would say, "Don't go into the Desert."

Here we go again with Clash of Civilizations ideology.

I'm for the death penalty but for those who are against it, I offer another choice: Life imprisonment with Hard Labor.

That's right! We'll let them earn their 'free' housing, food, security and the BEST MEDICAL CARE IN THE WORLD for being a murderer.

Since they are going to be locked up for life. We use them to test RFID tracking, GPS bracelets, advanced DNA matching techniques, face matching software and future security countermeasures so that they NEVER escape.

Pro-Death Penalty. Yet another conservative stance.

The powerful lobby of the religious right.

Support of stem-cell research. The only non-conservative belief of yours that I could find...

Then again as you said in your post, only the religious right really seems to be against it.

If you're going to try and weasel out of being called a conservative because you don't support Bush, don't bother. There are quite a few conservative posters here who don't support Bush, but are still by all measures considered "conservative".

Am I going to send you a pm? No. I mean, how am I going to convince you of something that you so strenuously are trying to dodge. Rather, I'm going to let the people on GAF judge you based on your posting history, because objective interpretations of a person are often best given by third parties.

As to why your beliefs should have entered this discussion: It's all about put up or shut up. As I said before, I've yet to see you criticize the U.S for failing in many of the same endeavours as the UN, yet many of your posts on GAF are nothing more than criticisms of the UN. The only criticism of the U.S I could find was on our national energy policy.

You say you want discussion of the UN? Fine, but why don't you actually research all the actions of the organization, rather than just analyzing the petty politics of the UN and then condemning it based on that.

This is my last post in this thread. If you want the last word PS2 Kid, go ahead and take it, here's the mic.