Did anyone see or read Kofi's good by speech?

luckydog71

Active member
Oct 26, 2003
1,117
0
36
73
Washington State
First he has presided over the decline of the UN and turn it into a toothless, meaningless, corrupt institution.

And why was it that the UN is a failed organization?

here is what I read....


"blah blah blah"

"blah blah blah"

"And still today, none of our global institutions can accomplish much when the US remains aloof. But when it is fully engaged, the sky’s the limit."

He is saying he did not accomplish much (true) because the US did not support him (duhhhhhh). I wonder why that is Kofi?

Good bye you useless prick. Maybe your predecessor can pull the UN out of the cesspool you have created. He/She could weed out all of the corrupt A holes on your staff, starting with your son.

na na na na hey hey good bye
 

souljacker

Total Noo-B
Dec 14, 2005
413
0
0
Kofi Annan certainly was useless. I actually think that the secretary-general of the UN is chosen, not based on any actual qualifications, but based on how much fun it is to say his name. Surely nobody on this list will deny how much fun it is to say "Kofi Annan!" Almost as much fun as saying "Boutros Boutros-Ghali!"
 

steverino

Well-known member
Feb 15, 2004
1,563
1,031
113
As is the case....

with most useless leaders or dictators he was the USA's choice to be UN secretary general back in the day. The US has a history much like the wisdom of John Kerry. In this case, "we voted for him but now we would vote against him."
 

roadwarrior

Banned
Mar 31, 2003
130
0
0
Kofi's son.

I think that Kofi Annan's son was under investigation for getting UN construction jobs from his father.

Kofi's makes Moe Sihota look clean.
 

gravitas

New member
Feb 7, 2006
2,175
0
0
roadwarrior said:
I think that Kofi Annan's son was under investigation for getting UN construction jobs from his father
Dodgy construction contracts and also involved with Iraq's oil for food program. Fuck all happened to the corrupt bastard.

Its time to go back to the old days of NATO when you're either with us or against us.....and if you're against us get ready since we're coming to take names and kick ass
 

rat_fink

New member
Jun 2, 2006
163
0
0
Next SG

Last I heard a South Korean was being considered for SG.
That might make the world a more interesting place considering South Korea's relationship with North Korea.

I don't agree the UN is a failed institution.
If only people would do what I tell them :rolleyes:

o7O
 

dirtydan

Banned
Oct 7, 2004
1,059
0
0
57
luckydog71 said:
First he has presided over the decline of the UN and turn it into a toothless, meaningless, corrupt institution.
For as much as you deny being a Republican you most certainly indulged yourself in repeatedly using their ignorant tripe. :rolleyes:

The fact is LD the UN did not decline simply because of Annan. If it has been on the wane, it started long before he became the Secretary-General. Here is a world organization with something like +170 members, it's given that decisions at best are slow in coming as each member is looking out for their national interests. However for the problems the UN has it is better than nothing. The fanatical maniacs in control of Republican policy say on one hand that they are terrified of a one-world government yet on the other hand if that one-world government is the US then they are all for it.


luckydog71 said:
And why was it that the UN is a failed organization?

here is what I read....


"blah blah blah"

"blah blah blah"

"And still today, none of our global institutions can accomplish much when the US remains aloof. But when it is fully engaged, the sky’s the limit."
The US is perhaps one of the worst members of the UN when it comes to coughing up its membership dues. Yah the US is required to pay the most, but that goes with having one fucking humungous economy. Albeit one growingly dependent on loans from Communist China. Anyhow to me it is plain silly to have a member that is slow in paying its dues but is always bitching about how the organization should be run. The UN could do a hell of a lot more if members like the US were much more timely with their dues.


luckydog71 said:
He is saying he did not accomplish much (true) because the US did not support him (duhhhhhh). I wonder why that is Kofi?
Because of idiotic Republicans?

luckydog71 said:
Good bye you useless prick. Maybe your predecessor can pull the UN out of the cesspool you have created. He/She could weed out all of the corrupt A holes on your staff, starting with your son.
So tell me LD, you pissed or stoned? Surely there must be some reason for the extent of your stupidy? Genes perhaps? I suggest you try turning the channel away from the partisian crap from Fox News and the usual bull crap spouted by the Republicans.
 

georgebushmoron

jus call me MR. President
Mar 25, 2003
3,130
2
0
54
Seattle
luckydog71 said:
He is saying he did not accomplish much (true) because the US did not support him (duhhhhhh). I wonder why that is Kofi?

Good bye you useless prick. Maybe your predecessor can pull the UN out of the cesspool you have created.
The United Nations was principally the creation of Great Britain and the United States. Franklin D. Roosevelt, in my opinion perhaps the greatest president of the United States, signed into creation the Inter-Allied Declaration- "to work together, with other free peoples, both in war and in peace" and the document to create the United Nations was later signed in Washington.

The UN is a democratic institution for the world. It is the ONLY democratic institution for the world. As in all democracies, things are difficult to decide because democracies are composed of many members each with their own agenda. It is no wonder the UN can be slow to make decisions, but that is the nature of a true democracy.

While many bemoan that the UN has been corrupt and ineffective, I'd like to remind you just how much more corrupt the government of the United States has been for decades. The US is beleaguered with the funnelling of humongous tax dollars straight into the coffers of politicians and their corporate interests, eg: the Bush family, Cheney, Halliburton, The Carlyle Group, Pentagon contracts, etc.

What has the UN done lately? A lot. Many organizations were formed as part of the UN. For example: UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization), the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the World Health Organization (WHO), to name a few. The United States neither has the scope nor the legitimacy to overtake these roles.

The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) is another arm of the UN whose role is to investigate and regulate all things nuclear. This means the approval of the use of nuclear energy, the development of nuclear plants, the processing of uranium for various uses, the regulation of development of nuclear weapons. Nations like Iran and N.Korea that wish to develop nuclear energy sources must submit to the IAEA their plans and submit for investigations. The IAEA has power. If these nations violate IAEA rules, they are condemned internationally and major powers can use this to enforce militarily and legitimately. Weapons inspectors, such as Hans Blix, working for the IAEA have kept Iraq free of nuclear weapons development for decades and should have been relied upon for information which in hindsight was 100% correct before the US got muddled into their modern Vietnam in Iraq. Instead, the Bush administration decided to use its own "intelligence".

If you wish to criticize the UN for being ineffective today, then look no further than the United States as one of the principle reasons for that. Under the administration of GWB, the UN has been ignored, attacked, and its funding suspended. The NeoCons began a campaign of subversion against the UN when they realised that their plans for the conquest of Iraq would be undermined by UN inspectors and opposition from France and Russia through the UN.

I for one would love to see the United States regain its preeminence as the legitimate authority and force for good in this world, but the high point of that was never regained after Roosevelt. Attacking the UN is a step backward into the time before the end of WW2 when nations had no authority higher than themselves to regulate their actions. The US should be championing the UN, not abandoning it.


dirtydan said:
So tell me LD, you pissed or stoned? Surely there must be some reason for the extent of your stupidy?
This is quite unnecessary.
 
Last edited:

smackyo

pimp supreme
May 18, 2005
1,637
4
0
your mom says hi.
so you really think roosevelt was the best eh? pretty damn good thats for sure. but i don't know dude. interresting to see what the usa would be had kennedy not been assaignated. he was gonna take the country in a whole different direction. for me, u.s. culture and legitemacy died with kennedy. that time seemed to be the usa's peak of moral and cultural dominance.

since then its been nothing but right wing garbage and cultural and social disintegration.
 

OTBn

New member
Jan 2, 2006
568
0
0
georgebushmoron said:
If you wish to criticize the UN for being ineffective today, then look no further than the United States as one of the principle reasons for that. Under the administration of GWB, the UN has been ignored, attacked, and its funding suspended. The NeoCons began a campaign of subversion against the UN when they realised that their plans for the conquest of Iraq would be undermined by UN inspectors and opposition from France and Russia through the UN.
The utter disdain shown by Bush in nominating Bolton as the U.S. ambassador - thankfully, the recent Democratic mid-term election wins closed the door on Bolton's confirmation and he's slithered off... last seen looking for a right-wing radio/TV hosting gig.
 

lovinithard

New member
May 28, 2006
117
0
0
between her legs
Thank you georgebushmoron for addressing some of the unbelievable nonsense on this thread coming from those apologists for American domination of the planet.

The fact of whether the UN is useless or not, and why, is certainly up for debate. The fact that the US is a corrupt bully trying to turn the whole planet into it's privately owned playground, is not.

Yanks, get off your high horses already. Bringing peace and democracy to the world? Give me a fucking break. Control of oil is the reason for the Iraqi fiasco. Why are there no US soldiers dying to protect refugees being raped and massacred in Darfur?

Nothing in Darfur to put into the fuel tanks of your fucking SUVs.

Democracy my ass.
 

HeMadeMeDoIt

New member
Feb 12, 2004
2,031
2
0
Democracy is only as good as those that pay for it. Close to 70% of the UN's budget comes from our good neighbour south of us. That's fact. Boutrous Ghali as distinguished as he was did not get a second 5 year term because he expected the US to bring up its debt to vurrent terms regardless of the direction that his "leadership" was taking the UN.

Iraq was not the largest UN failure in Koffi's time. Sudan and Darfour was. That's a reality because I've been to both and have seen the tragedy created in Darfur by a "formal government" that has gone out and armed a militia with no other purpose than exterminating an ethnic group for no other reason that its "different" ethnicity..
 

luckydog71

Active member
Oct 26, 2003
1,117
0
36
73
Washington State
georgebushmoron said:
The United Nations was principally the creation of Great Britain and the United States. Franklin D. Roosevelt, in my opinion perhaps the greatest president of the United States, signed into creation the Inter-Allied Declaration- "to work together, with other free peoples, both in war and in peace" and the document to create the United Nations was later signed in Washington.
GWBM - I know you know this... but from your post it sounds like FDR was involved in the creation of the UN. It was Truman who worked to set up the UN.

That aside, it is an interesting point you make..

I wonder how FDR/Truman would have acted after 9/11/01??? You can find the answer in their actions

The US was attacked at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. FDR immediately went to war against Germany.

I cut and pasted this from a FDR website.
"When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Roosevelt directed organization of the Nation's manpower and resources for global war. "

A global war!!!!! Does that sound familiar?

FDR started the development of the nukes that Truman dropped on Japan rather than put US troops at risk.

Is Bush following FDR/Truman? We were attacked by terrorists and GWB attacked Iraq in a global war. If he follows true to the example set by FDR/Truman, then the US will drop a couple of nukes on Iran and maybe Syria rather than put US troops at risk.

I wonder if 60 years from now some PERBite will be declaring in a post that GWB was the greatest president?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Oh BTW - I do think FDR was a very good president. He started the new deal and many of the entitlements we are stuck with today, but those social policies were what the US needed to bring us out of the depression. I would hate to see a FDR like person in office today, but he was the right person in the right place at the right time
 

lenharper

Member
Jan 15, 2004
339
0
16
Main difference is FDR attacked the country (and the allies of that country) who attacked the US. Bush attacked a country instead of the terrorist organization that attacked the US. And while you may say that Iran and Al Qaudi were clearly in league I think that most observers would say, at the time of 911, that this was by no means proven to be the case.
 

luckydog71

Active member
Oct 26, 2003
1,117
0
36
73
Washington State
lenharper said:
Main difference is FDR attacked the country (and the allies of that country) who attacked the US. Bush attacked a country instead of the terrorist organization that attacked the US. And while you may say that Iran and Al Qaudi were clearly in league I think that most observers would say, at the time of 911, that this was by no means proven to be the case.
What was the connection between Japan and Germany?

I think there are more dissimilar things between WWI anf the current war.... but both wars were/are global... our emeny hates the US and all western countries for that matter.... the US under FDR and the US under Clinton both tried to appease the enemy... both failed.

Both times it took a sneak attack for the US to wake up...
 

lenharper

Member
Jan 15, 2004
339
0
16
I believe Germany and Japan were allies in the sense that they had signed a non agression pact. They may have signed a more detailed alliance but I don't have energy to find that right now. As I recall Germany, Japan and Italy had all signed on as the bad guys (Russia did as well but Hitler did not live up to that agreeement). The point is if you signed on to fight either Japan, Italy or Germany you were pretty much agin all three.

all that aside it doesn't rationalize the decision to attack Iraq instead of focusing energies on bringing down or apprehending Al Quaida.
 

HankQuinlan

I dont re Member
Sep 7, 2002
1,744
6
0
victoria
luckydog71 said:
The US was attacked at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. FDR immediately went to war against Germany.

I cut and pasted this from a FDR website.
"When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Roosevelt directed organization of the Nation's manpower and resources for global war. "

A global war!!!!! Does that sound familiar?

Is Bush following FDR/Truman? We were attacked by terrorists and GWB attacked Iraq in a global war. If he follows true to the example set by FDR/Truman, then the US will drop a couple of nukes on Iran and maybe Syria rather than put US troops at risk.

I wonder if 60 years from now some PERBite will be declaring in a post that GWB was the greatest president?
Right. If FDR was using Bush's logic, he would have attacked Mexico after Pearl Harbor. What some people still don't get is that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.
 

luckydog71

Active member
Oct 26, 2003
1,117
0
36
73
Washington State
HankQuinlan said:
Right. If FDR was using Bush's logic, he would have attacked Mexico after Pearl Harbor. What some people still don't get is that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.
and what was Germany's involvment in Pearl Harbor?
 
Ashley Madison
Vancouver Escorts