The UN is a powerless organisation, without any powers to enforce any resolutions they might have come up with, or enforce a peace truce between waring factions. Bush can just walk in there and denounce whatever matter or issue not in the interest of the American people. I beleive the UN sholud be based somewhere that is politically NEUTRAL, say in Zurich, Switzerland. Instead of having the almighty US admin. breathing down their shoulders. I know the US does most of the funding, but does that warrant its current behaviour with UN chief? Remember what Bush said candidly to Blair about Kofi's suggestions as to how to help stop the conflict in Lebanon? To me, Kofi's proposals and approach to the problem were more humane, than Bush's. Kofi wanted an immediate ceasefire on both sides and the sending of UN forces in southern Lebanon, while Bush would prefer the Israelis finish the job of eliminating Hezbollas out of there. Well, they are doing the job, with Bush's blessings.
2006-07-23
01:47:14
·
10 answers
·
asked by
philip y
2
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
...and the children and women are being slaughtered, while Hezbolla continues to fire its rockets into Irael even today. Whose options were better? Kofi's or Bush's?
2006-07-23
01:52:21 ·
update #1