BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.

Subject: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 01:53 AM

????

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 02:02 AM

Looking at so many situations he's had to handle, I get the impression he'd screw up a one car funeral.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 03:45 AM

Bring back Boutros Boutros Boutros Boutros Gali... erh...

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 04:05 AM

Very few Secretaries General in the past has had to contend with a full court slime press by the Neocons the Israel lobby and The Murdoch organizations. Make no mistake its the UN that they are attacking Annan is just the symbol. Also realize that the reason that they are attacking the UN is because the UN's purpose is to prevent wars and the prevention of wars inhibits empire building.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Stu
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 04:29 AM

Kofi Annan inept? Hmmm.

Annan's most recent problems began when he insisted the US and UK should not invade Iraq without UN support - which they subsequently fialed to garner and invaded anyway.

He also raised the ire of the Bush administration and it's close allies when he suggested the invasion of Iraq was illegal. The fact that the US has started to treat the UN as either a tool for pursuing it's own agenda abroad or as an irritant when the UN won't be it's patsy is at the current root of Annan's problems. By portraying him as an ineffective leader, inept and incompetent, the US is trying to weaken the UN itself which the neocon administration would probably like to see sidelined or even disbanded altogether.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 04:54 AM

He does a very realistic impression of ineptitude from where I'm sitting, mind you he is the toothless head of toothless organisation.
The UN will never succeed while the US continues to sabotage it by one means or another. The US want to call the tune, and if the UN doesn't dance to their tune, then the music will stop.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Grab
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 06:50 AM

"Inept"? No. "Ignored"? Yes.

And it's a sad state of affairs when two G8 countries will ignore the democratic principles of the UN (and in one case refuse to pay their fees to it). It's a bad precedent to set - if the US doesn't have to follow what the UN says, why should North Korea or Iran care?

Although it's quite simple - imperial nations are only democratic *internally*. Externally, it's always been "might is right". Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Spain and Portugal did that when they had empires, and the US is just following the same example. Sadly the US is doing this 50+ years later, after a series of wars which you'd really have hoped would have got the message across that.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 07:18 AM

Inept? maybe. Corrupt? absolutely. Why pay dues to something so fucked up it is totaly useless?

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 07:32 AM

Kofi-Annan is more like a race car driver trying to drive a race car that has been tampered with by the Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Bolton/Rice war machine... Yeah, Bush would love nuthin' more than to pin the the messes that he has created on someone who is completely powerless to stop Bush's appitite for war...

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 08:11 AM

When the Kindy kids are hyped up on red cordial by their parents, it's a bit rude to try to pin the blame on the Day Care Supervisor...

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 09:22 AM

Why pay dues to something so fucked up it is totaly useless?

1. Because the U.S agreed to do so. Shows you how the U.S. honors its committments & keeps its promises, don't it?

2. Because one of the main reasons it is currently "fucked up" is BEACAUSE the U.S. is witholding funds. But its hardly "useless".

3. Because its the right thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 09:26 AM

4. The us is one of the major players in 'fucking it up' when that suits its purposes the best - why do you think the headquarters is in the USA?

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 09:49 AM

Corrupt? absolutely.

But apparently not half as corrupt as the Republican party.
Recall Abramoff, do you? DeLay? All the rest? Or have you a bad case of situational amnesia?

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 11:21 AM

Well let us see how the UN fucks up again in Lebanon. The success of the ceasefire in Lebanon hinges on a condition that Lebanon and Hizbollah both insist will not happen. Hizbollah is supposed to disarm, but says bluntly that it will not do so. The Lebanese government says it will not force Hizbollah to disarm. So what's going to happen? It appears that Israel is going to hold the UN responsible for carrying out its peace deal, and disarm Hizbollah. To that end, Israel will withdraw its troops from Lebanon, and leave it to UN peacekeepers to do what they are obliged to do. But here's the catch, not enough nations are stepping forward to supply the initial 3,500 UN forces, much less the eventual 15,000 UN force. However, it is likely that, eventually, enough nations will supply troops. But many of those contingents may not be willing to fight Hizbollah. Israel says it will not completely withdraw from Lebanon until the UN force is in place.

The Israeli strategy appears to be to allow the UN deal to self-destruct. If the UN peacekeepers can disarm Hizbollah, fine. If not, Israeli ground troops will come back in and clear everyone out of southern Lebanon. At that point, it will be obvious that no one else is willing, or able, to deal with the outlaw "state-within-a-state" that Hizbollah represents.

I suppose Bush will be blamed for this too?

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 12:37 PM

Well, yeah, Dave...

You plant weed seeds don't complain when weeds come up and Bush has sewn plenty of weed seeds...

When his attorneys were able to convince a Republican appointed Supreme Court to appoint Bush as president bush thought that all he had to do was the opposite of what Clinton had done... He ***quit*** Clinton's policy of trying to broker a peace agreement between the Isrealis and the Palestinins which destabilized thet region...

Then he not only attacked one Arab country but two destabilizing those areas as well...

He sent Powell to the UN with a bunch of lies to get a resolution then showed no respect for either the UN resolution or the one by Congress in his mad-dash-to-attack-Iraq at a time when Hans Blix was not only not finding WMD's but reporting that the Iraqis was being cooperative... This destabilzed the UN...

Now he sits back and allows Isreal to destroy Lebanon's infastructure and doesn't say a danged thing about it until the job is completed... More destabilzation...

So, yeah, he's made his bed and now he has to lie (pun intended) in it...

You reap what you sow...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Ringer
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 01:06 PM

I wouldn't put it quite that bluntly, Dave (tam), but I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment.

The trouble with all trans-national organisations such as the UN is that they're just talking-shops (the European Union - spit, spit - is just as bad). They are all viewed by the right-on wishy-washy trendy liberals who loathe the Western culture that spawned them as God's gift to the universe. But these tranzi organisations don't differentiate between the good and the bad. Any organisation that wanted to be taken seriously wouldn't give Zimbabwe or Sudan or China equal weight with democracies such as Britain or the US; so I don't take them seriously.

And UN "peacekeepers" have been implicated in sex-for-food scandals in the Congo as well as the better-known oil-for food scandals associated with Iraq.

And Koffi Annan is father to the well known, and corrupt, Kojo.

We'd be no worse off without the UN.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 01:38 PM

But if we didn't have the United Nations body, we'd have to create another one. There has to a way for nations to communicate with one another and a way to bring the weight of nations' opinion to bear on an individual nation.

So why not fix what we've got?

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 02:14 PM

I agree with the concept of fixing it Ebbie, but the best solution is a system based on the NATO model, and is not one that would be popular with third world nations. As Ringer succinctly stated above; every attempt to develop a democratic UN model, (which will include such cliques as the EU) (spit spit) the beaurocracy fails to produce achievable goals.

By allowing nations that are not democratic to have a say you introduce corruption to the great ideals of the UN. Greed and avarice for undeserved power and riches made available and under the UN authority leads to abuses. Power held by power cliques, and ruthless non democratic individual dictators and their entourages, undermines the very foundation and principals of the UN daily.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 02:14 PM

Agree with you all the way, Ebbie... And this shouldn't be a liberal v. conservative issue... For one, George Bush is no conservative... He is an imperialistic radical...

I know there is this sc hool of thought that goes, "Well, we've always had war and we always will..." but my thinkin' is that with this ever shrinking planet and interconnected economies that we are soon running out of room for the *luxary* of war... When man realizes this man will put more investment into orgainizations, like the UN, that have a single purpose of conflict resolution...

But it won't happen until the Wall Streets of the world discover that war is no longer profitable...

Will it end all war??? Maybe not but it sure ennough will head off the kinds of wars that the US and Isreal have been initiatin' of late...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 02:17 PM

My opion? What could my opinion possibly have to do with it? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: DougR
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 02:27 PM

Inept and as Dave said, also corrupt.

As the the UN, I would favor moving it into Greg F.'s back yard.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 02:38 PM

Now, THERE's a definite opinion! Very good, Doug. You get a nice shiny new penny.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 03:29 PM

It's really pretty simple. The United Nations was originally formed with the idea that if one nation has a beef with another nation, instead of sending the bombers or launching the missiles, they could go to the UN and make their complaint. The UN would provide an international forum, the problem would be discussed, and a peaceful solution presented. Should the nations involved in the dispute not like the solution and want to go to war anyway, the various other nations would provide peace-keeping forces and simple not allow the war to happen. A war, especially in the dawning nuclear age, could be detrimental to more nations than just the two involved, and these other nations would have the moral and ethical right—indeed, the duty—to prevent the war. The United States was one of the countries that pledged to supply peace-keeping forces to the United Nations when they were needed. This was ostensibly the case in the Korean "police action."

But if a small, Third World country has a complaint about a Superpower such as the United States or the Soviet Union stepping on their toes or, more likely, going in and exploiting their resources, and they take their complaint to the UN, and if the UN rules against the Superpower, that might interfere with profits, or efforts to gain geopolitical power, or both. Now, of course, as one of the few, if not the only Superpower right now (even though we're sincerely dedicated to democracy and self-determination for all nations), we can't have anybody interfering with our acquisition of power and profit! So we break our pledges, ignore our principles, ignore the UN, and exploit the Third World country anyway. We're certainly not going to fulfill our commitment to supply peace-keeping forces to stop us, now are we?

I like Bobert's analogy of Kofi Annan being like a race car driver. There he is, suited up, helmet on, belted in, and sitting at the steering wheel of what could be an excellent vehicle. But the United States has refused to supply him with wheels, so that fine car just sits there on concrete blocks. No matter how enthusiastically Annan tries to put his foot through the firewall, the car isn't going anywhere.

If the UN is "useless," then whose fault is that?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 03:52 PM

The U.N. is useless because it is merely the tool of a few great powers. They use it to rubber stamp things they have already decided. It's a PR device. It has no real power of its own.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 04:10 PM

"It has no real power of its own."

Therein is the travesty. Dave (tam) mentioned above that the NATO model would be something to aim for. Leadership passes from one country to another on a rotating basis. IMO, we need something like that with this updated League of Nations.

There have been Canadian peacekeeping commanders who have rejected orders from the UN in New York. Romeo Dallaire comes to mind. If Sainthoods were handed out for courage, he'd qualify, IMO.

"Gen. Romeo Dallaire defied U.N. orders to withdraw from Rwanda. Without the authority, manpower, or equipment to stop the slaughter, he saved the lives he could but nearly lost his sanity.

In an indifferent world, Gen. Romeo Dallaire and a few thousand ill-equipped U.N. peacekeepers were all that stood between Rwandans and genocide. The Canadian commander did what he could-did more than anyone else-but he sees his mission as a terrible failure and counts himself among its casualties.
After a 100-day reign of terror, some 800,000 Rwandan civilians were dead, most killed by their machete-wielding neighbors. Dallaire had sounded the alarm. He'd begged. He'd bellowed. He'd even disobeyed orders. "l was ordered to withdraw...by [then-U.N. Sec. Gen. Boutros] Boutros Ghali about seven, eight days into it. .. and I said to him, 'I can't, I've got thousands' -by then we had over 20,000 people-'in areas under our control,"' Dallaire said in a recent interview with Amnesty Now. The general's hands, always moving, rose beside his face as if to block the memories. "The situation was going to shit....And, I said, 'No, I can't leave."'"

What price glory? I guess I don't really know, but there are 20,000 Rwandans who could attest to the price. There but for fortune . . . .

The article about Dallaire can be read at this site.


The UN is a screwed up organization because it has no teeth. Instead of getting rid of the only real method of nations/peoples communicating, maybe it's time to give it teeth. If some of the 'giant powers' don't want to play ball, f#ck 'em. There are enough of the rest of us who could, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 04:18 PM

Little Hawk you are partially right, it is a beaurocracy gone insane with very little power; and frequently misplaced confidence in the power of negotiation with people who refuse to listen. Interference in the affairs of corrupted, non democratic coutries,is often frustrated by failure of UN mandate; and syphoning of funds into the wrong hands. Abuses by military observers and peacekeepers are not reported, and often ignored by senior officials of the supporting countries. I do not blame Democrats or Republicans in the USA for this it trancends politics, but is merely a sad reflection of the human condition itself. Noble intent is not enough, we need honourable and wiser people to run international affairs.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Grab
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 04:18 PM

Where it's done well, peace-keeping works. East Timor, external troops had a real effect. Sierra Leone absolutely *loved* their Brit peacekeepers who kicked ass and turned the country around.

Where it's done badly though, and the soldiers aren't armed well enough or provided with the political backing to *be* soldiers, it goes very pear-shaped. Bosnia was the classic example of that - for all that the Northern Irish may (validly) complain, the British Army is the best in the world at peacekeeping actions, but Michael Rose and co were ordered not to fire a shot to defend anyone, which kind of screws up the point of the exercise. Another great example was Somalia, where the US Army got their arses kicked big-style because (a) they couldn't connect with the people,(b) they couldn't fight in towns, and (c) they didn't care enough to stay and finish the job when things got bad.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 10:46 PM

"By allowing nations that are not democratic to have a say you introduce corruption"

There's than enough corruption to go around in the 'democratic countries'...

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Old Guy
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 11:12 PM

How does a country that is not a Democracy have a say?

Kofi couldn't pour piss out of a boot.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 11:21 PM

Why would he want to do that? Seriously, man, only rednecks pour piss out of a boot.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 11:24 PM

"How does a country that is not a Democracy have a say?"

Simple - the Dick-tater thinks he's in charge of the country - well he usually IS in charge of the Army, which is usually near enough to be good enough the same thing...

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 11:29 PM

"Seriously, man, only rednecks pour piss out of a boot."

HA! Lots YOU know. We DRINK it outta boots.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 11:53 PM

Iran,
Iraq,
North Korea,
Syria,
China,
Bhutan
Brunei Darussalam
Oman
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Swaziland
Tonga
United Arab Emirates
Libya
Turkmenistan
Vietnam
Laos
Somalia (transitional)
Myanmar (aka Burma)
Zimbabwe (questionable)
Mauritania
Haiti (transitional)
Cuba
Eritrea
Pakistan (military dictator)
Sudan

are all recognised by the UN and have a say do they not?

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Old Guy
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 12:28 AM

The full description is: He is so stupid, he couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the directions were written on the heel.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Slag
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 02:24 AM

"Let us build a tower up to heaven." Nimrod, The Hunter of Men's Souls

I'm with you and your albatross on this one Dave. Not inept: CORRUPT.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Ringer
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 04:23 AM

Inept and corrupt. Worst of both worlds.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 08:04 AM

"... are all recognised by the UN and have a say do they not? "

Not as BIG a say as the USA.... :-)

(Hey! That rhymes!)

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Old Guy
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 11:03 AM

Non Democratic countries might have a say at the UN but want they say is what the dictators say, not what the country as a whole would say.

For example, What do the people of Sudan say at the UN?

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 11:54 AM

For bad or good, the US is expected to pay 25% of the entire UN cost. They/We reneged in protest but everyone still expects them to pay up eventually.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: pdq
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 12:04 PM

The US is 4.56% of the world's population and we pay 25% of the UN dues? Sounds about normal.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 12:31 PM

Foolestroupe, Both China and Russia (Soviet) have UN Security Council Veto power, and have used it several times. Russia is now classed as a democracy. Most of the countries I have named can and do constitute a non democratic vote in the UN...

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: bobad
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 12:51 PM

pdq

The tables on this page may help you understand why the US's financial contributions to the operation of the UN is at the rate which you state.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Grab
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 01:09 PM

Actually the US dues are 22% now - they re-adjusted a few years back, and promised to pay if they did. And they *still* ain't paying. A bit of background about the US reneging on their debts here. (OK, it's Wikipedia so use your own judgement.)

For comparison of who pays what, perhaps a comparison of who has how much money would be worthwhile.

World GDP 2003

So the US has 21% of the world's GDP and pays (or actually "is supposed to pay") 22% of the UN budget. If we suppose that poorer nations need to use proportionally more of their GDP for essentials, that ain't too far out of whack, is it?

As far as peacekeeping not being effective, you could get a whole lot of peacekeeping for 607 million dollars. And you could do a whole lot of work providing fresh water and hospitals for the other 607 million which they don't even *intend* to pay. I wonder, what's more likely to get you some friends? 1 billion dollars on cruise missiles and bombs to invade a country and start a civil war? Or 1 billion dollars on peacekeeping (*real* peacekeeping, not deposing governments we don't like) and hospitals? Hmmm...

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 07:39 PM

"Both China and Russia (Soviet) have UN Security Council Veto power"

Sorry, I know that, but I couldn't come up with rhymes...


"peacekeeping (*real* peacekeeping, not deposing governments we don't like) and hospitals?"

Hmm, Hezbullah has built hospitals, schools,.... they seem to be popular....

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 07:58 PM

Exactly.

Hezbollah provides social services that would not be there if it weren't for them.

What have your politicians done for you lately? Seems to me they are busy figuring out ways to 'cut-back' your social services to fund their war.

The U.N. would work if the the U.S. would co-operate but co-operation is a one-way street as far as the U.S. is concerned. Sorta like 'free trade' and 'democracy'. Free trade means the U.S. gets it most of it for free and democracy means ...

I'm not sure what democracy means anymore. I think Bush might have killed it.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Peace
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 08:19 PM

"Hezbollah provides social services that would not be there if it weren't for them."

And bullets, missiles, rockets, terrorism, etc. Nice friends you have there . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 08:48 PM

Hey!!! What is all this crap about freedom n' democracy that a few folks keep throwin' out as if these twerms actually mean anything???

Exactly which country is it that you those of you who use these words are talkin' about???

And I'm perfectly serious...

Geeze... You certainly can't be talkin' about the ***incarceration capitol*** of the supposed "free" world: the good ol' US of A where so-called democracy goes to the highest bidder...

Yeah, I'm callin' you folks out who throw these words around like they actaully represent anything but narrow minded, true-believer parroting of propaganda...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Old Guy
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 11:23 PM

Democracy means idiots can spout of bullshit criticism of the government without fear of reprisal.

It means they can buy and sell a bunch of properties and make a shit load of money and still try to undermine the administration that made it possible.

Most people would call that hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 11:44 PM

I think there are many different aspects of what could be termed "democracy".

Freedom of speech is one. We have that in a lot of places now. We don't have it in some. Freedom of the press is another. Freedom of assembly is another. Freedom of religion is another. Freedom of cultural expression is another. Racial equality is another. Gender equality is another. Being free of a police state is another. The right to change governments through popular vote is another (but it may not mean much if all the political parties are really controlled by corporate money...).

Most societies in the developed world have a good measure of all these types of freedoms...with variations here and there.

There are a lot of less developed countries where those freedoms are severely restricted. Some are allies of the USA, some are enemies of the USA.

I don't honestly think geopolitics has much to do with spreading democracry, I think it has to do with controlling resources and financial power. When the kindling of a democracy is seen as beneficial to corporate strategy, it is done. When a democracy is in the way of corporate strategy, it is brought down and replaced by either a corporate-friendly dictatorship (as in Saudi Arabia or the Gulf States) or a corporate-manipulated & controlled democracy.

Some of it's real democracy....some of it's just a facade.

It is by no means a simple, cut-and-dried, situation.

Some people are fortunate to be born into an affluent and safe situation...some are not. You and I, Old Guy, were among the first group.

It is the duty of all people, even fortunate people like you and me, to be watchdogs on their own government and to criticize it if it gets out of line. If they didn't do that back in 1775, remember, there would BE no United States of America today.

(and Canada would be almost twice as big...) (grin) And YOU'd be eating real MAPLE SYRUP!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Kofi Annan--inept or not? Your opinion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 07:10 AM

"Nice friends you have there . . . . "

Now that's underhanded debating tactics! 'Guilt by association' - they're not MY friends!