Former President Clinton; Secretary-General?

Originally posted by Otts
Also, the candidacy of the former mayor of Mexico, Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, would be interesting - he's made a name for himself as a corruption fighter.
en.wikipedia.org...

If that guy is a proven corruption fighter then he would be the best thing for the UN.

Mexico curruption to boot thats not messing around thats big time.

here's the link

ShadowXIX - from what I read, Cardenas resigned all positions he held inside his party when accusations of corruption began rising around its leader. I'd like to provide more information, but those links in Spanish look foreboding

As for Bill Clinton... I don't know what kind of Secretary General he'd be - perhaps a good one - but what'll really handicap his candidacy is indeed that his wife is an influent member of the U.S. Senate and possible candidate for the U.S. presidency. Can you say conflict of interest?

EDITED for syntax.

[edit on 21-10-2004 by Otts]

Thanks for the link Moxy Very interesting story. I dont know to much about UPI as far as cred goes, but this would make one hell of a headline if its true.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Kollapse
"Not really, but people speculate he's the antichrist and people also speculate that the antichrist will use the UN to gain power. So damn... "


This is a big part in why the Americans rejects UN in general. brainwashed morons



[edit on 21-10-2004 by Kollapse]

Please

More like because its become a useless curroupt organization which is so toothless it can't even enforce its own rulings.

Yes, but the fairytale of the Anti Christ is a factor.

Originally posted by Otts
ShadowXIX - from what I read, Cardenas resigned all positions he held inside his party when accusations of corruption began rising around its leader. I'd like to provide more information, but those links in Spanish look foreboding

EDITED for syntax.

[edit on 21-10-2004 by Otts]

I am not only impressed with this guy for fighting corruption but also think he is a very brave man. In Mexico goverment curruption often deals with drug money from very powerful drug cartels. Such as Juarez drug cartel or whoever runs the show now are very dangerous and powerful people.

When you fight this type of corruption your putting more then your political career on the line.

This would be to benificial for the US to have a former Pres as Sec Gen.

The first time BC went against the Libs at the UN and voted pro US, the council would scream for his head.

The UN does not operate in the interest of the US.

Personally, I think we should drop out of the UN, order them to move shop to another country.

Sheeit is just about ready to hit the fan at the UN in regards to the oil for food program, KA will be luck to avoid criminal charges. The way it looks, 2 of his kids will go down in this scandal, along with several bankers from France and Germany. I cant wait!!!

Shadow - what I said about Cardenas comes with a sidenote though... I remembered him for being the opponent of the (scandal-ridden) Carlos Salinas administration in the nineties, that's why I looked him up. But more research would be warranted to get a good idea of the guy - if only I could read Spanish.

Originally posted by Kollapse



''Yes, but the fairytale of the Anti Christ is a factor.''

Maybe for a small group of people, but they have picked so many people for the anti-christ its not even funny anymore.

Im sure Kerry or Edwards are already on the list. Sure some people might think this stuff is real, but some religious people in the US handle deadly snakes because they think the bible tells them too.

Just because a small group thinks this doesn't mean the US people as a whole do.

[edit on 21-10-2004 by ShadowXIX]

(sigh) If we can stop being nutty and foaming at the mouth about anti-christs and one-world governments for a second I'll explain why Clinton won't be Sec-General.

No American will ever be Secretary-General of the UN. Neither will any Brit, Frenchman, Russian, German, or Chinese. The Sec-General is always chosen from a smaller, less-powerful, non-aligned country. I believe the previous one was from Egypt. Only the first Sec-General was from a powerful country.

So....there.

Edit: Actually here's a list of Secretary Generals

1. Sir Gladwyn Jebb (United Kingdom, Europe), acting, 1945 to 1946.
2. Trygve Lie (Norway, Europe), February 1946 to his resignation in November 1952.
3. Dag Hammarskj�ld (Sweden, Europe), April 1953 until his death in a plane crash in Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia), September 1961.
4. U Thant (Burma (now Myanmar), Asia), November 1961 to December 1971.
5. Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt, Africa), January 1992 to the American veto of his second term in December 1996.
6. Kofi Annan (Ghana, Africa), January 1997 to present.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 10/21/2004 by Flinx]

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Kollapse



''Yes, but the fairytale of the Anti Christ is a factor.''

Maybe for a small group of people, but they have picked so many people for the anti-christ its not even funny anymore.

Im sure Kerry or Edwards are already on the list. Sure some people might think this stuff is real, but some religious people in the US handle deadly snakes because they think the bible tells them too.

Just because a small group thinks this doesn't mean the US people as a whole do.

[edit on 21-10-2004 by ShadowXIX]

Agreed, but...the religous nutcases is important in the elections, especially for republicans.
Anyway I should not have used the word BIG in my clame..

never say never.

what is the exact process for the election of a new Secretary-General anyway?

Are citizens of permanent Security Council countries precluded from contesting the position?

Or has it just been customary to have one from a smaller 3rd world type country?

Originally posted by Kollapse

Agreed, but...the religous nutcases is important in the elections, especially for republicans.
Anyway I should not have used the word BIG in my clame..

I think of it like this most Muslim people dont agree with the views of Islamic terrorist, just as most Christians dont share the views of these people.

religous nutcases in any religon are a bad thing IMHO.

I would also say the Republicans have a strong Christian base. But I wouldnt say anything that had a strong muslim base has to share the views of a small group of fanatics. I think its the same case here we always here about the fanatics in a religon because they make better news, but we hardly here about all the normal and good hearted religous people.

[edit on 21-10-2004 by ShadowXIX]

I hope it happens. One irrelivent body deserves another!