Clinton to be UN Sec Gen

[absolutezero]

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041020-025642-9944r.htm

I posted in LBN too, apparently Bill Clinton wants to be Secretary General of the UN.

All I can say is SWEET!

[aquart]

1. Wishing doesn't make it so.

[DavidDvorkin]

2. I believe there's an unwritten rule

that the Sec'y General not be from one of the great powers.

[Maple]

4. There is no such rule

However,anyone on the Security council can veto him if they wish.

[Bridget Burke]

6. Another unwritten rule.... The Washington Times is not trustworthy.

AKA "Moonie Times"

[sleipnir]

3. Not going to happen. Rotation is now for Asia.

An Asian is next in line for SecGen, not going to be the Big Dog, yet...

The Americas are next after Asia, so in about 4-8 years, it's a distinct possibility.

Word on the street is that Asia is still unable to find a suitable delegate, top runner right now is (forget his name) from Indonesia, but there is major desertion in the Asia voting bloc. Perhaps all the confusion will let Clinton take office.

He's the perfect candidate for the job, if you ask me.

[AntiFascist]

5. Uh oh.......

The only problem is, wouldn't democrats then have too much power if we presided over the world AND the U.S.? Imagine the outrage, civil war, crying, etc....

[951]

7. It isn't going to happen

Remember the world isn't as warm to Americans as we might want to believe and after the damage Bush has done its not going to happen for sure.

[IrateCitizen]

8. It'll never happen...

Sec Gen has to come from a country that isn't a permanent member of the Security Council. Plus, they usually try to pick them from developing nations....

Personally, I think Clinton as Sec Gen would be a HUGE mistake. It would only confirm the suspicions of others of our intentions to essentially rule the world.

[freeminder]

10. my post below kinda proves your point :-)

I think you're right.

[freeminder]

9. excuse me, but

exactly how is it logical that of all countries, the US should deserve UN sec gen??

Quite the opposite, imho. You don't plan to head up the organisation you just trashed totally into the ground.

I know, I know, that was Bush*co, but he's your pResident. The non-vote on the Iraq war at the UN after saying "we'll get the cards on the table" and the subsequent unilateral attack incensed me then and still do now.

For clarity purposes, my sentiment has nothing to do with Bill Clinton as a person or a world leader. he has the capacities I believe, but he's from the wrong country.