Get read y .. Clinton to head up UN!

docmercer--banned · Nov 19, 2004

Boys ... get ready ... Bill Clinton wants this position and is pretty much a Lock ... this should be entertaining !

UN staff to vote on no-confidence motion against Annan

<TABLE cellPadding=2 width=145 align=right valign="top"><TBODY><TR><TD><CENTER><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=300 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle>[font=arial,helvetica][size=-2]ADVERTISEMENT[/size][/font]
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width=300 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD bgColor=#c24a4a><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=298 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD bgColor=#f6f4f4>

</TD><TD bgColor=#f6f4f4>

</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#fdc2c2><TD colSpan=2>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><MAP name=srch><AREA shape=RECT coords=11,98,161,130 href="http://sg.rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12a6i7oh5/M=316810.5531846.6603625.2013436/D=sg_news/S=38064013:LREC/EXP=1100985029/A=2382009/R=0/*http://sg.search.news.yahoo.com/search/sg_news?ei=UTF-8&fr=sfp&p=britney+spears"><AREA shape=RECT coords=11,134,143,168 href="http://sg.rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12a6i7oh5/M=316810.5531846.6603625.2013436/D=sg_news/S=38064013:LREC/EXP=1100985029/A=2382009/R=1/*http://sg.search.yahoo.com/search/sg_images?p=britney+spears&ei=UTF-8&dx=1&fr=sfp"><AREA shape=RECT coords=2,4,162,37 href="http://sg.rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12a6i7oh5/M=316810.5531846.6603625.2013436/D=sg_news/S=38064013:LREC/EXP=1100985029/A=2382009/R=2/*http://sg.search.yahoo.com"></MAP><MAP name=mobl><AREA shape=RECT coords=58,3,287,18 href="http://sg.rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12a6i7oh5/M=316810.5531846.6603625.2013436/D=sg_news/S=38064013:LREC/EXP=1100985029/A=2382009/R=3/*http://sg.mobile.yahoo.com/ringtones"><AREA shape=RECT coords=61,20,274,31 href="http://sg.rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12a6i7oh5/M=316810.5531846.6603625.2013436/D=sg_news/S=38064013:LREC/EXP=1100985029/A=2382009/R=4/*http://sg.mobile.yahoo.com/ringtones/index.php?keyword=toxic"><AREA shape=RECT coords=61,33,274,44 href="http://sg.rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12a6i7oh5/M=316810.5531846.6603625.2013436/D=sg_news/S=38064013:LREC/EXP=1100985029/A=2382009/R=5/*http://sg.mobile.yahoo.com/ringtones/index.php?keyword=andy+lau"><AREA shape=RECT coords=60,46,269,58 href="http://sg.rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12a6i7oh5/M=316810.5531846.6603625.2013436/D=sg_news/S=38064013:LREC/EXP=1100985029/A=2382009/R=6/*http://sg.mobile.yahoo.com/ringtones/index.php?keyword=mayday"></MAP></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width=150 align=left bgColor=#dcdcdc border=0 vspace="0" hspace="10"><TBODY><TR vAlign=top width="100%"><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width="100%" bgColor=#eeeeee border=0><TBODY><TR align=middle><TD bgColor=#eeeeee colSpan=2>

[size=-1]<SMALL>AFP Photo</SMALL>[/size]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

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.

xpanda · Nov 19, 2004

Do you know who gets to vote on this?

I'm inclined to think that most nations will have ZERO interest in the appointment of an American to the UN. It's bad enough that the UN is already a slave to the whims and wants of the States, but with an American (and former Prez) at the helm?

Fück no.

And I liked Clinton.

docmercer--banned · Nov 19, 2004

Xpanda:

I've been following this story closely ...

Remember, a lot of countries right now hate Bush more than they hate America

Clinton wants this bad from everything I've read and Kofi Annan himself had throw Clinton's name around

I agree with your statement on Clinton ...

docmercer--banned · Nov 19, 2004

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=321 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=t18B colSpan=3>Report: Bill Clinton interested in heading UN </TD><TD rowSpan=10>

</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=3>

</TD></TR><TR><TD class=t11B colSpan=3>By Haaretz Service</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=3>

</TD></TR><TR><TD class=t14 colSpan=3></TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=3>

</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=3>Former United States President Bill Clinton has set his sights on becoming secretary-general of the United Nations, a Clinton insider and a senior UN source told United Press International. Current Secretary-General Kofi Annan's term ends early in 2006.

</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=3>

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=3><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><IFRAME marginWidth=0 marginHeight=0 src="http://dclk.themarker.com/html.ng/site=haaretz&adsize=100x150&hposition=99&hlayer1=1&HaaretzCatgory=1&hlang=ENG" frameBorder=0 width=100 scrolling=no height=150 BORDERCOLOR="000000"></IFRAME></TD></TR><TR><TD>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>"He definitely wants to do it," UPI quoted the Clinton insider as saying this week.

According to the UPI report, a Clinton candidacy is likely to receive overwhelming support from UN member states, particularly the Third World. Diplomats in Washington say Clinton would galvanize the UN and give an enormous boost to its prestige. The UPI report states that the political wisdom is that a second George W. Bush presidency would cut him off at the pass. The notion of Clinton looming large in the international arena from "the glass tower" in New York would be intolerable to the Bush White House. If Democratic candidate, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., wins on Nov. 2 the prospect of Clinton as secretary-general won't exactly be welcome either, but Kerry would find it much harder - if not impossible - to go against it.

UPI quotes UN experts as saying that after a Middle East UN Secretary-General (Boutros Boutros Ghali) and an African (Kofi Annan) it is generally considered Asia's turn to fill the post. No announcement has been made, but behind the scenes China is already pushing the candidacy of Thai Foreign Minister Surakiart Sathirathai, who also seems to have U.S. support. If Clinton does emerge as a candidate, however, China would most likely shift its support, the experts say.

No American has ever been UN secretary-general, but the U.S. is both host country to the United Nations and the major contributor to its budget.

Clinton is currently recovering from the heart bypass surgery he had to undergo last month, which has kept him away from the Kerry campaign after a few initial support appearances. UPI reports that Clinton has talked of his interest in taking over at the UN since the publication of his commercially successful autobiography.

Putting Clinton in charge of the UN would be a real test of international intentions, UPI quotes observers as saying. "Critics of the UN complain that it's an organization without the muscle and will to put its decisions into effect," the UN source observed. "There's a good chance that Clinton could significantly change that situation, and then we'll see if the critics mean what they say." </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

PatPatriot · Nov 19, 2004

Well between the two,who would have thought that Coffee Enema would lose his job before GW.
21Billion dollar scam job with Saddam...how long would that continue? Without a US invasion of Iraq?
But of course the libs and John Kerry thought the UN was the be all end all.

When,like I said.The UN is abunch of corrupt 3rd world pygamy debating society.Whos last thing they want is world peace.That would mean their job is done.Just like Arrafat never wanted peace with Isreal,that would leave them without a job.

TomKing · Nov 19, 2004

Clinton was such a strong foreign policy President letting the terroist repeatedly attack the US without doing anything in return he would be perfect running a do-nothing organiztion such as the UN...should be a match made in heaven especially when Bush ignores him and attacks Iran. LOL.

PatPatriot · Nov 19, 2004

Tom unfortunatley that is the liberals dream team.Hillary Pres. and Bill self annointed pres of the world.

docmercer--banned · Nov 19, 2004

Tom:

Excuse me, my friend: "letting the terroist repeatedly attack the US without doing anything in return"

That statement holds true for Reagan and Bush 41 also ...
278 Americans died under Reagans watch at the US Marines barracks in Lebanon ... the Libyan attack on Pan Am 103 occurred under Bush 41 and NEITHER Reagan or Bush retaliated for those devesting attacks on Americans

Clinton warned Bush 43 about Al-Queda and they blew him off like a dumb hick ... in fact, Rice was vaguely familiar - AT BEST - with the name Al Queda when Bush started his First term

RobFunk · Nov 19, 2004

wow. bill head of UN and hillary is prez. thats crazy.

2 people that actually know what they are doing as the 2 most powerful people in the world.

and they are married!

Marco · Nov 19, 2004

I didn't know Morgan Freeman was a member of the UN.... :icon_conf

Shotgun · Nov 19, 2004

xpanda said:
Do you know who gets to vote on this?

I'm inclined to think that most nations will have ZERO interest in the appointment of an American to the UN. It's bad enough that the UN is already a slave to the whims and wants of the States, but with an American (and former Prez) at the helm?

Fück no.

And I liked Clinton.

Clinton has a lot of flaws, but anti-Semitism is not one of them. Therefore he is not qualified to be UN chief in the eyes of the world. Too bad Arafat is dead; he would have been a natural.

xpanda · Nov 20, 2004

RobFunk said:
wow. bill head of UN and hillary is prez. thats crazy.

2 people that actually know what they are doing as the 2 most powerful people in the world.

and they are married!

What you are describing is an absolute nightmare for the international community. The rest of us might as well rescind our citizenship now ...

xpanda · Nov 20, 2004

Shotgun said:
Clinton has a lot of flaws, but anti-Semitism is not one of them. Therefore he is not qualified to be UN chief in the eyes of the world. Too bad Arafat is dead; he would have been a natural.

Is it your assertion that the UN is anti-Semitic? Is it your assertion then that any and all outrage directed at Israel is ipso facto anti-Semitic? If so, then why is it not equally as true in reverse; that being pro-Israel is the same thing as being anti-Arab? Or do you believe that Israel is entirely a victim in the current situation?

docmercer--banned · Nov 20, 2004

Xpanda:

The current conflict is strictly religious and the refusal of the Arab world to recognize Israel ... complete destruction of the Israeli state is their true driving force

Israel has bent over backwards in negotiations .. its never good enough for the Arabs and never will be until Israel is completely wiped off the map

xpanda · Nov 20, 2004

Doc: I am aware that the fight between the Israelis and the Palestinians is strictly religious (as is the sentiment through the MidEast) but that's not exactly what Shotgun was saying. He is suggesting that the whole of the UN is anti-Semitic as though any and all positions taken against Israel are strictly based on rejecting Judaism. It's a positively ridiculous notion. Ariel Sharon and his policies make me positively nauseous -- does that make me a Jew-hater, too?

Shotgun · Nov 20, 2004

xpanda said:
Is it your assertion that the UN is anti-Semitic? Is it your assertion then that any and all outrage directed at Israel is ipso facto anti-Semitic? If so, then why is it not equally as true in reverse; that being pro-Israel is the same thing as being anti-Arab? Or do you believe that Israel is entirely a victim in the current situation?

1) Yes, the UN (General Assembly) is anti-Semitic. Are you asserting anything different? From equating Zionism to racism to its routine resolutions condemning Israeli acts of self-defense, it is pretty safe to call the organization anti-Semitic.

2) No, Israel has certainly done things that deserves criticism. However, the actions of the terrorists groups whose solitary goal is the destruction of Israel force me to give Israel the benefit of the doubt in the Mid-East.

3) Pro-Israel is not being anti-Arab.

4) I wouldn't use the term 'victim'...to me that word describes innocent parties unable to defend themselves from a more powerful adversary. Israel is in a war for its survival; they will do what it takes to defend themselves.

xpanda · Nov 20, 2004

Shotgun said:
1) Yes, the UN (General Assembly) is anti-Semitic. Are you asserting anything different? From equating Zionism to racism to its routine resolutions condemning Israeli acts of self-defense, it is pretty safe to call the organization anti-Semitic.

You make it seem like it's policy. In the first place, taking the position of being skeptical of Israel (as I am, for example) hardly makes one anti-Semitic. Taking issue with Israel is not the same thing as taking issue with Jews. Though obviously some do both, not all do. It is as though you are asserting that anti-Americanism is the same thing as anti-Christian-ism. For some, that may be the case. But it is not a blanket fact.

(As an aside: I find Zionism to be a very strange condition, don't you? The Christian/Judaism coalition is in the first place based on Christians' deception toward the Jews, entirely premised on bible prophecy. It should not be a platform for policy, certainly.)

2) No, Israel has certainly done things that deserves criticism. However, the actions of the terrorists groups whose solitary goal is the destruction of Israel force me to give Israel the benefit of the doubt in the Mid-East.

Terrorist groups do not have a seat at the General Assembly. Further, Israel has done plenty of things that deserve criticism, especially under Sharon. You attempted to dismiss the UN's right to condemn these actions in your first point.

3) Pro-Israel is not being anti-Arab.

... as being anti-pro-Israel is not being anti-Semitic.

4) I wouldn't use the term 'victim'...to me that word describes innocent parties unable to defend themselves from a more powerful adversary. Israel is in a war for its survival; they will do what it takes to defend themselves.

As they should. But it's difficult to argue that snaking the wall around Palestinian settlements and failing to honour the 1967 "border" is simply acting in self-defense.

All of this said, Israel now has the chance to prove that they have acted in self-defense and self-defense alone. With Arafat out of the way, and their accusations of the Palestinian leadership being impossible to negotiate with quelled (we can hope, at least) Sharon has the opportunity to reach a mutually satisfying agreement. We shall see.

Shotgun · Nov 21, 2004

xpanda said:
You make it seem like it's policy. In the first place, taking the position of being skeptical of Israel (as I am, for example) hardly makes one anti-Semitic. Taking issue with Israel is not the same thing as taking issue with Jews. Though obviously some do both, not all do. It is as though you are asserting that anti-Americanism is the same thing as anti-Christian-ism. For some, that may be the case. But it is not a blanket fact.

There's nothing wrong with being skeptical or critical of Israel's actions...I certainly don't think anyone is anti-Semitic for doing so. Maybe most UN countries can be anti-Israel without being anti-Jew, but the Arab/Muslim/3rd world countries that dominate the General Assembly don't make that distinction.

xpanda said:
(As an aside: I find Zionism to be a very strange condition, don't you? The Christian/Judaism coalition is in the first place based on Christians' deception toward the Jews, entirely premised on bible prophecy. It should not be a platform for policy, certainly.)

Maybe it is odd...I do differentiate between religious Zionism and political Zionism; frankly I never learned much about the prophecy stuff in my Catholic school days and haven't felt a need to go back and see what I missed.

xpanda said:
Terrorist groups do not have a seat at the General Assembly. Further, Israel has done plenty of things that deserve criticism, especially under Sharon. You attempted to dismiss the UN's right to condemn these actions in your first point.

The PLO was given a seat at the UN in 1975. There have been over 700 UN resolutions passed by the General Assembly since 1945. 60% of these resolutions have been aimed at ONE country (Israel). None have been aimed at any Arab countries for their aggressive attacks on Israel. Here is a sample of these resolutions:

* General Assembly Resolution 250 "calls on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem."
* General Assembly Resolution 251 "deeply deplores Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250."
* General Assembly Resolution 252 "declares invalid Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as her capital"
* General Assembly Resolution 271 "condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem"
* General Assembly Resolution 476 "reiterates' that Israel's claims to Jerusalem are null and void"
* General Assembly Resolution 673 "deplores Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations"

The UN has absolutely no credibility when it comes to Israeli issues. This assembly refused to endorse the Camp David accords, or the Israel/Egypt peace agreement in 1979 (because the PLO wasn't involved). The UN certainly has the right to condemn whoever they want, but, like a coach screaming at the ref, they are no 'honest broker' and what is said usually isn't affected by the merits of the case.

xpanda said:
All of this said, Israel now has the chance to prove that they have acted in self-defense and self-defense alone. With Arafat out of the way, and their accusations of the Palestinian leadership being impossible to negotiate with quelled (we can hope, at least) Sharon has the opportunity to reach a mutually satisfying agreement. We shall see.

Sure. Now is the time for Mid East peace. Israel has won the Intafada war and Arafat is dead. Provided the Palestinian 'moderates' are able to stay alive, there is a great chance for real progress.

xpanda · Nov 22, 2004

Shotgun said:
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical or critical of Israel's actions...I certainly don't think anyone is anti-Semitic for doing so. Maybe most UN countries can be anti-Israel without being anti-Jew, but the Arab/Muslim/3rd world countries that dominate the General Assembly don't make that distinction.

With all due respect, you failed to make the distinction yourself. You accused the UN, not some UN members, as being anti-Semitic. I agree with you fully that anti-Semitism is the order of things in the ME, but I don't agree that it is official UN policy.

Maybe it is odd...I do differentiate between religious Zionism and political Zionism; frankly I never learned much about the prophecy stuff in my Catholic school days and haven't felt a need to go back and see what I missed.

I rather wish I hadn't myself.

The PLO was given a seat at the UN in 1975. There have been over 700 UN resolutions passed by the General Assembly since 1945. 60% of these resolutions have been aimed at ONE country (Israel). None have been aimed at any Arab countries for their aggressive attacks on Israel. Here is a sample of these resolutions:

* General Assembly Resolution 250 "calls on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem."
* General Assembly Resolution 251 "deeply deplores Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250."
* General Assembly Resolution 252 "declares invalid Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as her capital"
* General Assembly Resolution 271 "condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem"
* General Assembly Resolution 476 "reiterates' that Israel's claims to Jerusalem are null and void"
* General Assembly Resolution 673 "deplores Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations"

The UN has absolutely no credibility when it comes to Israeli issues. This assembly refused to endorse the Camp David accords, or the Israel/Egypt peace agreement in 1979 (because the PLO wasn't involved). The UN certainly has the right to condemn whoever they want, but, like a coach screaming at the ref, they are no 'honest broker' and what is said usually isn't affected by the merits of the case.

On a personal level, I believe that fighting over land, to the tune of tens of thousands of deaths, for thousands of years is nothing short of absurd. The resolutions you cite are from 1945 onward which is around the time that history shifts in Israel's direction. If it were the other way around, and the Palestinians had control over Jerusalem and wished to hold a military parade there, the Israelis would be upset. Please note that no stink has been made to have Arafat buried in the al-Aqsa (sp?) Mosque. That struck me as a good sign.

Again, this millenia-old fight of theirs is beyond absurd to begin with. I'm not sure why the rest of us are even interested in getting involved. The West should get its nose out of the ME entirely, IMO.

Sure. Now is the time for Mid East peace. Israel has won the Intafada war and Arafat is dead. Provided the Palestinian 'moderates' are able to stay alive, there is a great chance for real progress.

We can hope.

eek. · Nov 22, 2004

The UN anti-semitic???

If the UN is anti-semitic then how did Israel come into legal existence in the first place???

So the UN first of all creates a legitimate Jewish state.
This then gives the UN the opportunity to pass lots of
anti-semitic resolutions against the place. :>Grin> :>Grin> :>Grin>

This is impressive analytical brilliance that breaks new boundaries.

:hitting:
'hello. is there anybody in there?'