Clinton eyes U.N. post

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:27 am

What do you all think about this? (My editorial: This guy loves power.)

By ROLAND FLAMINI, UPI Chief International Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 (UPI) -- Former U.S. President Bill Clinton has set his sights on becoming U.N. secretary-general. A Clinton insider and a senior U.N. source have told United Press International the 56-year-old former president would like to be named leader of the world body when Kofi Annan's term ends early in 2006.

"He definitely wants to do it," the Clinton insider said this week.

A Clinton candidacy is likely to receive overwhelming support from U.N. member states, particularly the Third World. Diplomats in Washington say Clinton would galvanize the United Nations and give an enormous boost to its prestige. But the former president's hopes hang on a crucial question that will not be addressed until after the presidential elections: can he get the support of the U.S. government -- a prerequisite for nomination?

More: http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.s ... 20Breaking

rasil · Post by **rasil** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:26 pm

Clinton is the best man for the job.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:18 pm

Imagine the variety of interns he would have to select from and the U.N. is already scandal ridden so he would fit right in.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:35 am

[QUOTE=Tombstone]What do you all think about this? ........[QUOTE]

So, like Indian politicians, American politicians also do not rest after retirement. Why they do not allow others to live peacefully?

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:57 pm

Enuf wrote: At present, with what is going on in the world, terrorism ,Iraq, loss of international support for the US. I think that possibly Clinton may bring a little leverage into the UN for the west. He will at least do better than a leader or politition from a non west affliiated nation of the world will.

A year or so back Jean Creitcien(? spelling) former CAnadian primeminister was rumoring asperations for the possition WOW now that would be a disaster for the west might as well put Arrafat in the possition. US UN relations sure wouldn't get any better , if you need proof of that look at the relations bettween the Bush administration and Canada when Creitcien was in office.

All in all being said I think that BUsh is a better President than Clinton was because of his ballence of domestic and forigien policies. Prehaps Clinton is the reason that the Bush administrarion has been on clean up in the international arrena and catching all the flack for it. If Clinton would have took a stronger aproach internationaly perhaps his popularity internationaly wouldn't be as strong..

Was it and this all in the grand plan from the get go possibly. HA

Clinton as the UN sectretary General and Hillory PResident in four years.

Now taht would be a Clinton era to be fearfull of, or regoice depends on what side of the fence your on with the Clintons and power because then they sure would have it.

Perhaps that last paragraph should have been in the Consirracy theory section of forumGarden. HA

You have made out a very good case for Clinton but not based on logical grounds. You are looking at this issue from US point of view only.

Is UN for the west only? You want him there as you fear that a leader or politition from a non-west affliiated nation of the world will not do that much for the west as Clinton will do. The institution of UN has always been exploited by US presidents and other leaders of western countries. UN has been treated as a department of US. The thought that other countries are also represented and should have a say in its affairs has always been a foreign thought for US and other western countries.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 7:39 am

Suresh Gupta wrote:

Is UN for the west only? You want him there as you fear that a leader or politition from a non-west affliiated nation of the world will not do that much for the west as Clinton will do. The institution of UN has always been exploited by US presidents and other leaders of western countries. UN has been treated as a department of US. The thought that other countries are also represented and should have a say in its affairs has always been a foreign thought for US and other western countries.
First of all, I wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t say the UN is for anyone. You spoke of balance in another post. The UN will interfere with world wide balance. If those who argue for the UN get their way we will have a lid on the pressure cooker that will keep the world from letting off steam. The pressure by groups of all kinds will grow with the desire to have autonomy until it blows in a bigger way than the world has ever seen.

The UN can only bring a short period that looks like peace because there are fewer wars. Peace is not the absence of war. Peace is the presence of contentment born in love. War is a sign that mankind is still willing to die for what they believe is right. A man who dies for what is right, dies in peace. A man who lives conflicted has no peace.

Bill Clinton is a charismatic Ã¢â‚¬Å“leaderÃ¢â‚¬Â. He is not a man of character and he lacks true wisdom. He is perfect for the UN.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:17 am

[QUOTE=Clint]First of all, I wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t say the UN is for anyone.

Yes, UN is for all, and all member countries should demonstrate it not only by words but their actions. Using the instrument of UN to force one's views on other countries is wrong and against the spirit of universal equality.

[QUOTE]...... The UN will interfere with world wide balance. If those who argue for the UN get their way we will have a lid on the pressure cooker that will keep the world from letting off steam. The pressure by groups of all kinds will grow with the desire to have autonomy until it blows in a bigger way than the world has ever seen.UN can only bring a short period that looks like peace because there are fewer wars. Peace is not the absence of war. Peace is the presence of contentment born in love. [QUOTE]

Your concern is misplaced.

[QUOTE][QUOTE]The War is a sign that mankind is still willing to die for what they believe is right. A man who dies for what is right, dies in peace. A man who lives conflicted has no peace.[QUOTE]

One need not go to war to willingly die for what one believes is right. War does not end in peace. It only results in more hatred and creates grounds for another war.

[QUOTE]Bill Clinton is a charismatic Ã¢â‚¬Å“leaderÃ¢â‚¬Â. He is not a man of character and he lacks true wisdom. He is perfect for the UN.

I am confused. How a man who is not a man of character and lacks true wisdom can be a perfect choice for the post of UN chief?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:45 am

Tombstone wrote: What do you all think about this? (My editorial: This guy loves power.)

Shame that someone trustworthy doesn't go for the job.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 6:48 am

Good Auld Bill. I shook his hand in Dublin city when he came over to promote his book in September.

He will need a Secetary too. :guitarist :guitarist :guitarist

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:05 am

Suresh Gupta wrote: I am confused. How a man who is not a man of character and lacks true wisdom can be a perfect choice for the post of UN chief?
The UN is an ill-conceived body. It was doomed to fail from the beginning. It is riddled with scandal and always will be, because it can only function if it functions in deceit and secrecy. Bill Clinton is that kind of a guy. He will fit right in. He will make it what everyone wants it to be for a while but nothing like that never lasts.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 9:22 pm

Clint wrote: The UN is an ill-conceived body. It was doomed to fail from the beginning. It is riddled with scandal and always will be, because it can only function if it functions in deceit and secrecy. Bill Clinton is that kind of a guy. He will fit right in. He will make it what everyone wants it to be for a while but nothing like that never lasts.

Then first make UN a healthy body as developing contries need it. A person fit for deceit and secrecy should not be there under any sitiation.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:34 am

Suresh Gupta wrote: Then first make UN a healthy body as developing contries need it. A person fit for deceit and secrecy should not be there under any sitiation.

Developing countries need a few good friends who can help them along. They donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t need a world-wide body that has been inevitably corrupted by its power.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:28 pm

Clint wrote: Developing countries need a few good friends who can help them along. They donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t need a world-wide body that has been inevitably corrupted by its power.

Yes, they certainly need good friends. But an organization is also helpful. UN has not been corrupted by its own power but by its few powerful members who think that other countries are at their goodwill. It makes it necessary that developing countries are given more say in UN affairs.