Toronto Escorts

UN's Kofi remained on vacation for 3 days after Tsuamis hit

djk

Active member
Apr 8, 2002
5,953
0
36
the hobby needs more capitalism
http://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp?nid=660

Q: Mr. Secretary, picking up on Richard's question, I think a lot of people are asking exactly why you waited three days on vacation in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, before you decided to fly back to New York in the face of this extraordinary crisis. Could you give us a full explanation of your thinking on that? Secondly, what kind of signal does that 72-hour delay send to the nations to which you are now appealing for greater help?

SG: First of all, there was action. It wasn't inaction. We live in a world where you can operate from wherever you are. You know the world we live in now. You don't have to be physically here to be dealing with the leaders and the Governments I have been dealing with. You don't have to be physically here to be discussing with some of the agencies that we have done.

I came back here because we have reached a level that I wanted to have meetings with all the people that I have met with today. So, we have taken action. And I don't have to be sitting in my office to take action. I think the same goes for you in your profession.

Cheers,

-djk
 

Don

Active member
Aug 23, 2001
6,289
10
38
Toronto
Yeah I though that was pretty lame. Anyone who blasted GWB for his slow response to 9/11 should blast Kofi for his slow response to the tital wave
 

djk

Active member
Apr 8, 2002
5,953
0
36
the hobby needs more capitalism
Don said:
Yeah I though that was pretty lame. Anyone who blasted GWB for his slow response to 9/11 should blast Kofi for his slow response to the tital wave
But Kofi was against the iraq war, so he gets a free pass!

Cheers,

-djk
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
YYC, we just want fair and balanced bashing LOL

OTB
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
Bash Kofi all you like.
Just don't think it's going to deflect from *Bush*.
;) (And *his* slow response ..........)
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
bbking said:
What was slow about *Bush* response - an intial amount of money was pledged with a comment from the *Whitehouse* expressing sorrow for the tragedy. This was followed up with an additional pledge of funds when the scope of the tragedy became known. All along senior Whitehouse officials were quoting the POTUS and on day 2 the Whitehouse was saying that funds pledged were an initial response until the entire tragedy could be reviewed and the US would then be in a position to help more effectively. I even heard people like Ranger complaining about Bush not going to SE Asia - boy that would help a lot, with all the things that would go with a POTUS visit I would think it would serve no purpose and only get in the way. The view I have from the idiotic and unreasonable left is that GWB could have handled thi perfectly and they would still find a reason to complain.

As for Kofi - not a word was heard from him and the only comment from a UN official complained that the West was being cheap with their money - a comment that the UN distanced itself from later. No, the problem here with Kofi is that he did and said nothing and further proved that a Kofi lead UN is completely useless on the international stage. His inaction took the UN out of this international effort - and perhaps that's a good thing - SE Asia really doesn't need another Iraq style 'food for oil' program.


bbk
And the US is actually DELIVERING aid while Kofi shuffles his team to make amends for yet another UN fiasco (the bribe for food program).

OTB


OTB
 

n_v

Banned
Aug 26, 2001
2,006
0
36
This thread serves no point in that pretty much every world leader was sitting on their ass immediately after the tsunami, not just Kofi. Singleling anyone out is futile. No one was better than the other one.
 

n_v

Banned
Aug 26, 2001
2,006
0
36
bbking said:
Kofi and his buddies, on the other hand, did absolutely nothing but complain.
But it wasn't until that complaint that the aid started to pour in from the international community and one upping the other nation started. And most didn't do anything right away. Bush was hiding in Texas, Martin in Africa and who knows where the rest were. They ALL did squat initialy.
 

scubadoo

Exile on Main Street
Sep 21, 2002
1,059
0
0
75-45
n_v said:
But it wasn't until that complaint that the aid started to pour in from the international community and one upping the other nation started. And most didn't do anything right away. Bush was hiding in Texas, Martin in Africa and who knows where the rest were. They ALL did squat initialy.

Good point!
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
scubadoo said:
Good point!
Yeah, one penciled neck geek makes a remark and the world commits 2B - yeah that's it.

OTB
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
Could we get just off the subject on who was first, second or third, or who did what and when?
Does it really matter? What is the point of this discussion?Just to bad mouth politicians?
As always.... I don't get it..
Isn't it more important to get off your ass and send some money? How much doess each of you contribute? Did you do it already?Or did you just sit on your ass?
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,533
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
maybe he was waiting for his son to get a job with a relief agency. So he could tell us where to filter errrr donate our cash to.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,533
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Ranger68 said:
Bash Kofi all you like.
Just don't think it's going to deflect from *Bush*.
;) (And *his* slow response ..........)

Took you over 9 hours to respond to this thread

Where the hell were you!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Booya

New member
Oct 6, 2004
22
0
0
n_v said:
This thread serves no point in that pretty much every world leader was sitting on their ass immediately after the tsunami, not just Kofi. Singleling anyone out is futile. No one was better than the other one.

I beg to differ. Like him or hate him, Bush was one of the fastest in the western world to respond. They have since sent plenty of equipment, and personel to help get aid to the people. I think it's important to mention when everyone favorite past time these days is to bash Bush and the U.S.
What's Canada done??? Our government failed once again to do anything of importance in a time of need. With that said.. I'm very proud of the citizens of Canada for the money we've raised.
What was this thread about?.... oh yea Kofi... get that lying self serving fuck outta there!!! The U.N. needs re-tooling to be effective, and it all starts with him!
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
yychobbyist said:
You guys spend a lot of time bitching about getting off the U.S's back while slagging the UN at every opportunity don't you? Anyway, ok, so get rid of old Kofi. Who you going to replace him with? And don't say you want some white western American who's going to come in and kick ass because it won't fly.
Jeb Bush..... Just Kidding

How about Bill Clinton - everyone outside the US loves him, the wife represents NY now anyway and the UN could learn a better game of fraud from a native son of AR. And for many of us it would be just another good reason to hate the UN. Don't know that it would help with the sexual harassment issues the UN has been having, but think of the intern possibilities....

I don't care who it is but I think that the UN needs a new face with some credibility - and a sh*t load of reform. The reason the US has been holding back on payments because the bureaucracy is out of control at the UN - and it's our money they're stealing / wasting.

OTB
 

n_v

Banned
Aug 26, 2001
2,006
0
36
Booya said:
I beg to differ. Like him or hate him, Bush was one of the fastest in the western world to respond. They have since sent plenty of equipment, and personel to help get aid to the people. I think it's important to mention when everyone favorite past time these days is to bash Bush and the U.S.
What's Canada done??? Our government failed once again to do anything of importance in a time of need.
I guess you have been living under a rock.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
n_v said:
I guess you have been living under a rock.
Really, how so?

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
What he says:
OTB

Johah Goldberg

January 05, 2005, 7:15 a.m.
U.N. Ain’t the World

United Nations defenders are unconvincing.

Is the United Nations an odious institution?

Like a billion other columnists, I recently wrote a column considering the allegation made by a U.N. administrator that the United States is a "stingy" nation. It is "obvious," I interjected by way of counterpoint, that the United Nations is an "odious institution." Ever since, my e-mail box has been groaning to contain the angry protests.

The United Nations really is an amazing cultural fault line. On one side are those who believe that it is the last, best hope for mankind. On the other are those who think that title still belongs to America. Of course, this is an exaggeration, but I think it captures the essence of the debate about the U.N.

Of course, the institution's defenders will object to this. They will agree that, yes, sure, anti-U.N. right-wingers are raging ideologues terrified of "black helicopters" and "world government." But to support the United Nations, they demur, is an act of benevolent pragmatism. They are decent folks trying to stick up for a decent organization trying to make a better world. In fact, one typical e-mailer summarized this position succinctly: "You conservatives don't want a better world. Period."

(Sigh.) It seems lost on these anti-ideologues that assuming your opponents are hoping for a worse world is about as ideological as you can get.

If the issue is helping suffering people, why did the United Nations crowd — led by Clare Short, the former head of U.N. international development — scream bloody murder when it was announced that India, Japan, Australia, and the United States would coordinate aid efforts? Short declared that any efforts to help the suffering tsunami victims outside U.N. authority would "undermine" the world body.
So much for pragmatism. Who cares who helps the needy, and under what flag, as long as it gets done?

As it happens, the U.N.'s most ardent supporters are anything but pragmatists. They hope passionately that the organization might become what Tennyson called the "Parliament of Man, the Federation of the world." Or they hope with equal fervor that it may serve as an idealistic alternative to American hegemony. Or they wish for both. And that's where I start having problems.

I don't have any objection to the U.N.'s technocratic functions. As a practical matter, if it makes sense to have a central clearinghouse to organize the building of water treatment plants in the third world, OK, fine. Most of us agree that helping victims of natural disasters, inoculating children, feeding the starving, and so forth are good things — just as we all agree it's a good thing for our garbage to be collected.

But it is a huge intellectual leap to go from saying garbage should be collected to saying that the government should collect it. Similarly, you need to demonstrate that United Nations noble efforts cannot be carried out by someone else.

More to the point, it's an even grosser intellectual stolen base to claim or suggest that because the United Nations does good things in Somalia or Sri Lanka that we should assume its political motives are just as pure. The Nazis were brilliant at delivering social services. Hamas's "political wing" builds hospitals and inoculates babies, but that doesn't make it any less of a terrorist organization.
Now, the United Nations isn't a hotbed of Nazis and terrorists, by any stretch. But it's not a democratic, representative body either. Absolute power resides in the Security Council, whose core members originally included two brutal totalitarian regimes, China and the Soviet Union — both of which remain (in altered form) authoritarian regimes to varying degrees. Meanwhile, the larger General Assembly is chockablock with kleptocratic lickspittles working on orders from their dictatorial paymasters in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

cont.....

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Cont....

This is why I find it so infuriating when people talk about how the "nations of the world" voted on this or that in some U.N. resolution. No they didn't. Some nations voted through their representatives, other nations had one criminal cabal or another vote in their name. And if you believe — as so many opponents of the Iraq war did — that barbaric dictators are legitimate rulers because international law says so, then international law upholds the logic of the Fuehrer.

As for the other argument — that America needs the United Nations to check and thwart its ambitions — I have even less patience. Usually such arguments are made by non-Americans who fear or hate the United States (France, call your office). Right or wrong, it's perfectly legitimate for foreigners to make this case. Germany defines its interests differently than America does. But when Americans make this argument, my eyes roll. Yes, you can think it's in America's interest to have bureaucratic Lilliputians from the "international community" tying America down and giving a megaphone to our enemies. But that strikes me as an odious case for an odious institution.

OTB
 

scubadoo

Exile on Main Street
Sep 21, 2002
1,059
0
0
75-45
Maybe what the UN needs is someone like Lloyd Axworthy or John Manley.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts