Kofi Annan To Be Ousted In Vote Of No Confidence?

[punky]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...n_041119115027

Please God, I hope this happens.

Annan is one seriously inept person. His idea of stoic leadership means letting everyone do whatever they want, and then bitching about it to the press. Even for the little company I work for, if I ever managed like he did, I would have deservedly been fired a long time ago. Not only is he so passive in his leadership (it is hard to tell if he is awake or asleep sometimes), but you can tell he just doesn't have a clue.

Let's hope he gets ousted, and gets replaced with someone who can actually do the job.

I've said all along he's no good for that job.

[etccarmageddon]

brilliant and about time. no doubt morgan freeman will play him in his life story movie and they'll make out he was the great peacemaker of the century but he's useless and feeble. sadam and others manipulated him.

He is a dolt

Complaining to the media about stuff he doesnt like, its unprofessional and amazingly bad managment considering he usually complains about its own members

A man who sums up all that is wrong with the UN.

I have always been of the opinion that the UN is one of the greatest waste of money and air, to come out of the 20th century. More and more it is seen as an old boys club, full of self important wasters, who produce little, yet allow millions to suffer death and starvation all over the Third World. If I had my way I'd bulldoze the building with all the useless w**k**s inside.

[punky]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._un_annan_dc_6

FFS. Teflon bloody Annan. We'll never be rid of him at this rate.

I would like to know one thing he has ever done which is an example of good leadership, or even anything remotely intelligent. Or even anything that is listed in his job description. Even if he is exonerated of all corruption, and even if his son is too, Kofi is still incredibly inept, and should have been fired for gross incompetence. If I managed my post anything like he did? I would have. Give me his $400k year salary, free palatial home, 24 hour limo, unlimited expense account, and let me do it. Could I be any worse?

This makes me laugh.

The Charter also empowers the Secretary-General to "bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security".

Oh, like Rwanda (He apologised for that one so it is OK I suppose) and Sudan? Virtually every news outlet around the world covered that comprehensively before Annan ever mentioned it.

These guidelines both define the powers of the office and grant it considerable scope for action. The Secretary-General would fail if he did not take careful account of the concerns of Member States, but he must also uphold the values and moral authority of the United Nations, and speak and act for peace, even at the risk, from time to time, of challenging or disagreeing with those same Member States.

Like, if the US and UK break international law (I don't think the US did with the Iraq invaison, but the UK certainly did spying on the highest level diplomats at the US' behest), that means you don't do anything, you just whinge about it to the press? I just equate him to a father who doesn't believe in disipline, lets his 143+ kids run amok and just whinges they are like that to everyone else, but won't do anything. He is so out of his depth. I just wish he'd do something constructive. Resign would be a nice start.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by punky

Like, if the US and UK break international law (I don't think the US did with the Iraq invaison, but the UK certainly did spying on the highest level diplomats at the US' behest), that means you don't do anything, you just whinge about it to the press? I just equate him to a father who doesn't believe in disipline, lets his 143+ kids run amok and just whinges they are like that to everyone else, but won't do anything. He is so out of his depth. I just wish he'd do something constructive. Resign would be a nice start.

But what could he do though? The real power rests with the permanent members of the Security Council...if any of them did anything illegal, the SG can't do anything. And if there is a matter of international peace & security which he has brought to their attention, he can't force any action to take place, it's up to them.




On a related note....


A UN panel has called for reform & expansion of the Security Council - http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...363573,00.html

[punky]

Originally Posted by Matt D

But what could he do though? The real power rests with the permanent members of the Security Council...if any of them did anything illegal, the SG can't do anything. And if there is a matter of international peace & security which he has brought to their attention, he can't force any action to take place, it's up to them.

But it is his job to make sure they do. Don't all member states allocate(mandatorarily?) X numbers of troops & resources to be used as the UN sees fit for whatever the UN needs to do? Peacekeepers etc. aren't just members of the security council. I don't think UN peacekeepers are allocated per job, they are full time aren't they?

Also, despite how important the US is to the UN, that doesn't mean they can do what they like without repercussions. If any of the member states screw up, then they need to be punished for it. How can the SG have an attitude that the US is to big and important, so lets not upset them and let them do whatever the hell they like. I don't think the US did anything illegal in international law, but if I was SG, I would hold a comprehensive and impartial inquiry into wether the previous resolutions were still valid, and wether the wording of the final 2 allowed for the use of force. If it was deemed illegal, then the US should be reprimanded approriately. Easier said than done, I will admit but how can you let countries get away with crimes because they are important or needed, and you don't want to uspet them?

[punky]

Incidenty, how well does everyone feel about wether he is good at his job, poor at his job or in an impossible situation? Do you think he should be replaced, or is it just me.

[punky]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/a...ow/1046733.cms

Can we please, please, please get rid of this idiot. I don't care how anymore. We need to be shot of him. Not wanting to remove evil dictactors is one thing, but to actively try and bolster support for known terrorist organisations is one thing. They say the UN is powerless. Thank Gof for that, could you imagine what life would like if this guy did have any power?

Apparently terrorist organisations should only be stopped, if they are unpopular.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by punky

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...n_041119115027

Please God, I hope this happens.

Annan is one seriously inept person. His idea of stoic leadership means letting everyone do whatever they want, and then bitching about it to the press. Even for the little company I work for, if I ever managed like he did, I would have deservedly been fired a long time ago. Not only is he so passive in his leadership (it is hard to tell if he is awake or asleep sometimes), but you can tell he just doesn't have a clue.

Let's hope he gets ousted, and gets replaced with someone who can actually do the job.

Yup, he's either incompetent or corrupt....and his son is definitely corrupt.

Originally Posted by punky

to actively try and bolster support for known terrorist organisations is one thing.

Apparently terrorist organisations should only be stopped, if they are unpopular.

I suggest you ask the US Government about supporting terrorist organisations...!!