TTI Forums

Interesting that Annon would select America’s most influential traitor, Harry S. Truman to hold up as an example of how America should act. Some folks may not be familiar with the Venona Project The cliff notes version is that US intelligence at the time of the Truman administration had many indications, that dozens of Truman’s cabinet members and appointees were Russian plants and spies. Rather that confront the facts Truman killed the messenger. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, former Soviet operatives confirmed the duplicity of the Truman administration. Truman harmed the global interest of the US more than any other President we know of.

I love Annon’s stance that the US should follow his five points, while the non-aligned countries - murder, lie, cheat, steal and completely flout all diplomacy. Iraq is a great example - for decades they

• Killed their own populous
• Had two wars of aggression against their neighbors
• Funded NGO aggression against the non-Muslim world
• Roundly defied UN resolutions and a sanctions
• Attempted to build/acquire WMD

And finally the US acts multilaterally to clean out that dictator, and Annon considers it a deviation from Democratic ideas.

Annon’s comments seem idiotic to me. And it seems like the Unitied Nations is impotent to resolve any regional or global conflict. Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela must all be just laughing their A$$s off at this stilly situation.

Annan criticizes U.S. in farewell speech By MARGARET STAFFORD, Associated Press Writer Mon Dec 11, 10:15 AM ET

INDEPENDENCE, Mo. - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in his farewell address, criticized the Bush administration, warning that America must not sacrifice its Democratic ideals while waging war against terrorism.

In remarks prepared for delivery Monday at the Truman Presidential Museum and Library, Annan also said the Security Council should be expanded.

"Human rights and the rule of law are vital to global security and prosperity," Annan's text said. When the U.S. "appears to abandon its own ideals and objectives, its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused," he said.

Annan, who leaves the United Nations on Dec. 31 after 10 years as secretary-general, has become an increasingly vocal critic of the war in Iraq.

He said in the text that the U.S. has a special responsibility to the world because it continues to have extraordinary power.

Annan summed up five principles that he considers essential: collective responsibility, global solidarity, rule of law, mutual accountability and multilateralism.

He chose the Truman museum for his final major speech in part because it is dedicated to a president who was instrumental in the founding of the United Nations. His text repeatedly praised the Truman administration but never mentioned Bush by name.

"As President Truman said, 'The responsibility of the great states is to serve and not dominate the peoples of the world,'" Annan said.

"He believed strongly that henceforth security must be collective and indivisible. That was why, for instance, that he insisted when faced with aggression by North Korea against the South in 1950, on bringing the issue to the United Nations," Annan said.

"Against such threats as these, no nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over all others."

Annan also called for a reform of the Security Council, saying its membership "still reflects the reality of 1945." He suggested adding new members to represent parts of the world with less of a voice.

He said the permanent members, the world powers, "must accept the special responsibility that comes with their privilege.'

"The Security Council is not just another stage on which to act out national interests," he said in another jab at Bush.

Annan has had a strained relationship with the administration and with outgoing U.S. Ambassador John Bolton.

He was criticized by some in the administration and in Iraq after saying earlier this month that the level of violence in Iraq is much worse than that of Lebanon's civil war and that some Iraqis believe their lives were better under Saddam Hussein.

He also has urged the international community to help rebuild Iraq, saying he was not sure Iraq could accomplish it alone.

Bolton also is leaving this month. He resigned in the wake of the November elections, which gave Democrats control over the next Congress, making his Senate confirmation unlikely.

After a private dinner Tuesday night at the White House for Annan, Bolton joked that "nobody sang 'Kumbaya.'"

Told at the time of Bolton's comment, Annan laughed and asked: "But does he know how to sing it?"

What does

masashi wrote:He chose the Truman museum for his final major speech in part because it is dedicated to a president who was instrumental in the founding of the United Nations. His text repeatedly praised the Truman administration but never mentioned Bush by name.

"As President Truman said, 'The responsibility of the great states is to serve and not dominate the peoples of the world,'" Annan said.

"He believed strongly that henceforth security must be collective and indivisible. That was why, for instance, that he insisted when faced with aggression by North Korea against the South in 1950, on bringing the issue to the United Nations," Annan said.

have to do with

masashi wrote:Interesting that Annon would select America’s most influential traitor, Harry S. Truman to hold up as an example of how America should act. .... The cliff notes version is that US intelligence at the time of the Truman administration had many indications, that dozens of Truman’s cabinet members and appointees were Russian plants and spies. Rather that confront the facts Truman killed the messenger. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, former Soviet operatives confirmed the duplicity of the Truman administration. Truman harmed the global interest of the US more than any other President we know of.

Sounds like your overly teasing for a fight here and reading more into it than you should!

I do agree though that the Unitied Nations is impotent to resolve any regional or global conflict and that Annon didn't help the situation.

It's diificult to know what to think on many of these issues when you have no confidence that any of the information you receive is the truth. Bush has repeatedly lied to the American people and both US and UK forces/intelligence appear to have doctored information to show what they want it to show. Maybe we should take a closer look at home before we tell the rest of the wrold what they should be doing.

Raaz Satik wrote:Sounds like your overly teasing for a fight here and reading more into it than you should!

I suppose I am a bit sensitive, but let’s step back and look at it. Kofi Annon flies to the center of the US to give his last speech. The United Nations is head quartered in New York. Annon was grandstanding plain and simple. There’s probably more international significance to Omaha, Nebraska than Kansas City. Truman and his little buddy Alger Hiss did play the pivotal role in setting up the UN, so I’ll give Annon credit for appealing the history of the UN.

Annon holds up Harry Truman as some great icon that the current leadership of the US should emulate. The truth is Truman was a stooge for the Soviet Union, much as the UN and its General Secretary are today.

Harry Truman might be the first person to step up and say don’t follow in my foot steps. Truman was the only person ever to decide to detonate an Atom bomb on not one but two civilian populations. With unilateral gunboat diplomacy in the Taiwan Strait, Truman only fermented aggression on the Asian continent in Korea and Vietnam. The guy had some difficult situations to deal with, but he was no saint.

Before replying to this I decided to refresh myself on Truman's biography. I come away once again astonished at how influential of a President he was.

We can thank him for the debacle of Vietnam (Ho Chi Minh wanted to be an ally of the US) and the fact that we are still (sorta) fighting the Korean War. Further, the potential exists that had he influenced things differently the creation of Israel could have gone very differently (not to say it wouldn't exist, but its final configuration before statehood may have been quite different).

Most importantly if the Palestinians had wound up with a slightly better deal one might argue the last 20 years of history in the middle east could be markedly different.

While many people here consider the creation of the UN by itself to be a bad mark on his record, you cannot fault him for what the organization has become. A UN-like organization has to exist, and it serves its purpose. I'm not denying that it's royally screwed up (because it is) but we don't exactly live in a world of right and wrong, black and white. If you prefer to think of it in those terms despite all evidence to the contrary then I'd recommend giving the White Houses' specially-made batch of fruit punch a shot.

Truman desegregated the military (to much opposition). The newly formed DoD balked at the the idea. Truman demanded the resignation of every officer who did not support the move - and many did. The US military, for what it's worth, is the most diverse and racially blind organization I have ever encountered.

Although not his brain child, Truman's govt did institute the highly successful Marshall Plan despite Congressional opposition.

I'm not saying all of his influence was good, in fact a lot of it was bad. But given the situations he was placed in I see his largest mistake being Vietnam as it was so horrendously obvious. The Korean War was never meant to be won, and I wonder what the consequences would have been if we did use a nuke on the peninsula.

On the whole though, I think calling him a Soviet stooge is largely unfounded. His lack of reaction in the face of grave evidence against Hiss is in-excusable (tho he was removed from the work of the govt and into the WMF), it seems more likely caused by an over-folksy, over-trusting, and provincial thinking flaw in character than some elaborate high spy ring.

To treat Truman's legacy in such a way over a single point in that way would demand that you (and history) call Bush by what he is - an over-folksy, over-trusting, and provincial President who looks into the souls of former KGB agents and sees a friend, and looks into the eyes of former allies and sees an unfounded enemy.

I'd like to add that it was the US that supported Saddam and his tirrany when they could use him/his oil.

They even neglected to respond to the "accidental" killing of 37 sailors by Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war.

So during the time when the US could influence Iraq directly through non direct war (cancelling support/aid) they choose to look away. Only after it suits the US do they choose to act.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_ ... t_for_Iraq

Raindrop wrote:I'd like to add that it was the US that supported Saddam and his tirrany when they could use him/his oil.

I'd like to add that none of Middle Eastern oil belongs to Middle Eastern countries.

A country does not come to own everything that inside of it.

There was a contract where US. companies had provided equipment to those countries to get the oil, and at some point those countries just nationalizes/stole the whole package.

So, USA should act to protect the property rights of its citizen, by taking back those oil fields.

EDIT: Here's a letter that expresses more of my view:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page= ... le&id=7497
"Iraqi Oil Does Not Belong to the Iraqi People"

Oleksandr wrote:So, USA should act to protect the property rights of its citizen, by taking back those oil fields.

EDIT: Here's a letter that expresses more of my view:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page= ... le&id=7497
"Iraqi Oil Does Not Belong to the Iraqi People"

If not the fields, then certainly the capital equipment. My little buddy Hugo Chavez is doing the same exact thing right now in Venezuela. Odd that they don’t mention anything about this theft on the evening news?

Maybe Kofi Annon, and the powerful influence he built up while at the UN, can help in Venezuela … Oh wait they already have a thief, they don’t need a second.

Makes me wonder how well the oil fields would fair if the US pulled out all of their equipment like Musashi said. I wonder how well the Iraqis would be able to rebuild/produce the needed machinery. Or if we would have a "Wyatt's Torch" in Iraq...

Any given equipment is in a bussiness should have payed itself back within 5/10 years. If it doesn't it wasn't a sound investment to begin with.

Besides it's not the equipment that was the problem. The problem was that aslong as the US could use Saddam against Iran they supported him despite him commiting acts against humanity. The US supported his position and aided him during his reign. Aparently the US gouverment has a problem to learn from the past when it concerns helping loonies to power. They ussually turn their back to the US because they think they can get away with everything at all times because they could when the US supported them.

Only when the tables turn on the US do they take action. There is no morality there just bussiness. And lies to cover up the fact that it's all bussiness. And why the lies? To maintain their political power at home.