Nearly everything I’ve heard about the new UN Secretary-General Ban has been good. Or, at least, comparatively good–compared, that is, to his predecessor Kofi Annan.
Now he’s done two reasonable things, after only a couple of days on the job: refused to condemn the execution of Saddam Hussein in the usual pious and doctrinaire UN fashion, and stated a commitment to dealing with Darfur.
January 3rd, 2007 at 7:08 pm
If he did nothing but sit around all day doing jell-o shots, he would be better by comparison to Annan.
January 3rd, 2007 at 8:19 pm
To make any real improvements to UN you need some ancient Greek hero, like Heracles, to clear these Augean stables. Even such worthy man as John Bolton hardly could do much to this desperate task.
January 4th, 2007 at 1:32 am
Even an iota of good sense from the head of the UN is shocking. Won’t it be nice if he steers the UN back to being moribundly rather than vociferously anti-American.
January 4th, 2007 at 2:34 am
The only way Ban can actually do something at the UN that he actually wants, is if he either has a couple of billion to bribe the burus or if he had the powers of arrest and execution in his hands.
January 4th, 2007 at 2:38 am
Forget it Yarmar…I dont trust those guys to deliver blankets and bottled water. I certainly wouldnt give them any real power.
January 4th, 2007 at 2:44 am
I’m afraid the UN is a lost cause.
America should pull out of it—and then demand that it move its headquarters someplace else.
January 4th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
I’m afraid the UN isn’t a lost cause, in the literal sense. Because if it isn’t a lost cause, because if Bush still believes in the UN, if America still funds the UN, then the UN will continue to perpetrate evil. The UN must be annihilated.
No man worth his salt would support such a clique of butchers and sadists..z
Child Raping continues