Impeach Kofi Annan and Arrest Him

First hero.. ((edited))
Now... that out of the way.. correctness? What have I said that was incorrect?

((edited)) We, the US, do not have the power to impeach him. No single national power does and you posting this thread only goes to show that you have no friggin clue how the UN works. To "impeach" the Sec General requires a vote of the General Assembly you ignorant puttz - a place where we have never, never had any real influence. Were it not for the Security Counsel, we would simply be paying the bills and not have anyinfluence. But of course you knew that and chose to ignore it. Riiiiiiight.

Assuming that you could "impeach him".. under what nation's laws would you bring him to trial? He hasn't broken any US laws has he? He didn't steal from any US entity and I have yet to hear it said that, if he did, it was on US soil. So he's outside US jurisdiction you fool. Pick another country and you have the same problem.

He is literally above the law here...that is what that position has goign for it. Unless he is literally caught murdering someone, with the murder weapon in his hand AND it is on the sovereign soil of a specific country, guess what.. he is immune from prosecution.

And f** your title. I dealt with it.

So... civility? Correctness. Vulgarity. You ought to see the parts of this I didn't type.

((edited))

Don't say I don't take your arguments seriously, because I do, and here's more proof:

Your whole last post was from "national" perspective - and in essence, you're correct, and I agree. It would be an International effort, as I have consistantly stated in my posts in this thread. It is here, by omission, that you are wrong - saying that "Individual citizen righteous indignation about that is wasted." No, it's not. Many grass-roots movement starts with thousands of independant individuals speaking out in small-scale venues. Look at the effect bloggers had on the 2004 US Elections, as evidence.


Wrong again. When did I ever say the US could impeach him alone? Straw man, Korg.
I've visited the UN, for starters.


Hmmm... why does that sound familiar?

If I have no understanding of how the UN works, then clearly neither do you for restating what I already said!


Okay, now here's an interesting argument. I wish you had centered your post on this. It is clear that the US doesn't have any substantial influence. But should any country over the UN?
On the other hand, when Bush wanted stuff done in the UN, he was making progress - UN resolution to approve force as a last-measure was, in fact, passed in the General Assembly against Iraq around the 2002/2003 wintertime.
And there's the fact that the US houses the UN ... some subtle pressure can be put on diplomats in the forum of everything from housing to traffic tickets to a variety of inconveniences that diplomats would have to deal with on a daily basis.
And there's the fact that the US is the largest contributor to the UN's budget. Worst case, the US can freeze funds in protest.

Well, I would suspect that in the number of trade-offs that happened in International UN politics, the US having such a large contribution was only allowed with how much power the US does have.
Hell, veto power in the security council alone is fairly powerful.
But you're correct in one sense - the Security Council is the biggest threat to the US's International power - being that France, China, and Russia are on the council, and were on the take of Saddam.

Again, who said national? You did, not me. War Crimes tribunal could work, or the US could find some black-ops way to frame him for something. But, more likely, a political trade-off would happen behind the scenes, allowing him to remain free and the US to exert more muscle-flex in the "War on Terror"... or perhaps the "War on Drugs" ... or maybe the "War on War?"


Clearly.


It's nice to know that, relatively speaking, you are uncivil, incorrect, and vulgar, but could be much worse if it were up to you. Nice.


Then how come you've never successfully kept it civil and addressed my arguments?
How come when I prove my point you simply leave and never bother to counter again?
If you want to show everyone how smart you are, or how strong a debater you are, why don't you show us keeping your civility? I've seen you do it elsewhere.

The next time you quote someone, you ignorant ass, quote them correctly. Don't change the words in the quotation. At least be man enough to let my /their words speak for themselves.

By misqoting so blatantly you prove just how accurate my opinion of you is.... and it is more negative with each post you make.

You have no understanding of argumentation that cannot be gleaned from a high school text. You equat unequal things and claim they are the same "because you are illustraing a point". You charge others with not being on point when you present issues "for discussion" that are so vague as to be debatable from the next galaxy in terms of picking an arguable side.

You twist statements out of context and then claim that what others say is what you said previously - thus that someone agrees with you. Fool.

You visited the UN for starters? Oh boy. That makes you an expert! Good for you. Everybody take note. Hiro the hero is an expert.

And of course, you claim that you are being picked on - a classic victimage ploy.

Hiro... ((edited))... your posts are senseless and your arrogance is unbelievable. I am direct while you fiddle fart around and play games.... I have no sympathy for "your plight" - that of being outmanned, outgunned and essentially at the mercy of anyone with two cooperatively functioning braincells - and I can definitely lay claim to that while I am certain you can't.

"Report me for abuse", my ass. You should have someone there whispering in your ear -"Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." I may be nasty and aggressive. You prove your ignorance repeatedly.

Moot? Because you say so?

They have much to do with this --as the charges being leveled against Annan are from an R senator who wishes to divert attention from his own club's MASSIVE thievery of Iraq.

I'm quite on topid here, Hiro -- whether you wish to accept that or not.

Let's take ths only thing approaching any reasonable argument - and that is being VERY generous - and see it for what it is... Note that I added #'s in the quoted portion solely to save space in referencing them... and such does not change their context.

Analysis/Refutation/interpretation of each line
1a. So what? Housing the UN? See.. we do not house the UN - that is "sovereign territory" according to international consensus. US laws have no effect on those grounds where the buidling stands. The UN has ceded back to the US the right to fight fires and do a minimal amount of criminal investigation there - but solely if there is nearly irrefutable evidence of capital crimes or flight ot escape hot pursuit.
1b. Totally speculative and retributive on your part. Also counter to the "spirit of diplomacy" that the UN and international diplomatic relations are based upon. Shoot yourself in the foot why don't you?
2a and 2b. Yep. And the Dem's go crazy that the US is withholding funds, (sarcasm on) the rest of the world gains a new "respect" for America (sarcasm off) as a generous nation who is willing ot uphol dits commitments to the UN. Right.. in case you don't know it, we are already in arrears.
3. "I would suspect" - your whole post can be summarized in those three words... you suspect. You theorize.. you opine. You prove your ignorance by doing all of those here. You argue based on fantasy... not on knowledge or understanding of what is involved - domestically, geo-politically and even militarily. But, you have already demonstrated that you can't draw the connections there. I am not surprised you missed the boat here too.
4. Uh? It is? All it does is stop discussion or action. It does not force anyone to do anything. It maintains the status quo.
5. How you draw this connection with my statement is beyond me. I'd like someof those drugs you are apparently on when you hallucinated this.
6. Uh.. dude. Impeach is a "legal" measure. There is no such thing as a non-legal impeachment proceeding... thus, as there is no enforceable international law - and no court that the US actually recognizes as having sovreignity over our government, you are playing semantic games here... that or just being dense. I can't decide which.
7. Again.. war crimes? Who is going to pursue them? On what charges? In what court? We do not recognize any court that allows US commanders to be tried as war criminals... and what war anyway? Are you actually saying we should trump up some charges? Make a kangaroo court? Really ethical there Hero.
8. Again, rampant speculation presented as a semi-logical conclusion without preparing the grounds for validity of that conclusion in the first place. Your wild and indirect assertion that the US is amoral, immoral and underhanded is baseless - at least you haven't provided a case that even remotely suggests otherwise.

Hero.... go tilt at a windmill. You haven't got a clue and you are making jackasses blush at their favorable comparison to you in terms of intellectual accomplishment.

It's all crap.

The whole system is a scam. It's organized crime. They're all thieves playing at a different level of abstraction.

We (the non-coercive people of the earth) must fire the whole lot of them, if we can.

Funny, isn't it.... how my posts have been edited yet the attacks on me were not.

Good going Jeska. Thanks for the consistency.

Oh come on, Korg. You shouldn't be too surprised. You seem to have a hard time disagreeing with someone without adding in a personal attack or three. It took me a long time to figure out that I actually agree with you about half the time because your tone is always so disagreeable. If you cut back on the ad hominems, more people would probably realize that you have a fair amount of wisdom lurking behind your curmudgery.

You had to chime in, right Chip? Of course you did.

Half of what you believe are ad hominems are actually not - most likely.... They are actual analyses of his posts from a professional perspective. But of course they seem to be other. Then again.. I have no clue why I even attempt to explain that to anyone. Without experience, 99% of people will not see the difference.

it's true korg. it took me a long time to realize you were highly intelligent because of your endless use inflamatory language and unsubstantiated "expert opinion" rhetoric.

get over yourself and just make your arguement.

My opinion of myself is, I warrant, no higher than most of themselves here in the forums, but certainly far less than a certain number of specific individuals. Don't mistake self-confidence and verbal aggression for feeling full of myself.

As for unsubstantiated "expert opinion" rhetoric - if you refer to my opinion on matter of diplomatic action, geo-political-military analysis or communications studies - I'll match my creds against anyone. If you refer to my charge that certain others are so often using unsubstantiated opinion as the primary rhetorical strategy, well, life's a bitch, huh. If it applies to you, note it and act on it or don't. If it doesn't apply to you, well, ignore it or not. I could care less.

i think you missed the point, korg, because you are so full of your resume. nobody cares about your expert experience. for all we know, you could just as easily be a pimply face 20 yr old virgin with a good general knowledge and even better google skills. all that matters here is your arguement.

when you make your arguement you need to substantiate it with something more than:
a> "you are an idiot"
b> "i am an expert"
c> "here is my resume"
d> "my alt av is a terrific pole dancer"
e> all of the above

you often do, but more often you do not. as your resume only matters in the real world, and this is quite clearly a virtual one, we are all 5 star generals here and retired UN diplomats.

I've given more blowjobs to diplomats than anyone else who posts on this board. That's got to count for something.

I can sum my response to your continued efforts to "educate" and advise me in one statement... which I am sure will be edited.

Here goes anyway.

Pack sand.

do you mean make a sand castle or mud pies?