RugbyRebels

With his passing this morning the news will doubtless be inundated with saccharine sentimentalism hailing the loss of a great statesman; but should there really be any fanfare at the passing of the man who presided over the UN during its abysmal failures in Bosnia and Rwanda?

Having a mixed record is perhaps the best that can be done, both with regard to individual dramas and to the long diplomatic road map of trying to build a consensus

...and Iraq

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:With his passing this morning the news will doubtless be inundated with saccharine sentimentalism hailing the loss of a great statesman; but should there really be any fanfare at the passing of the man who presided over the UN during its abysmal failures in Bosnia and Rwanda?

Sent from my Moto G (5S) using Tapatalk

He should be lauded as a trailblazer. As we now know, doing nothing and allowing the local nutters carte blanche is the best course of action.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:With his passing this morning the news will doubtless be inundated with saccharine sentimentalism hailing the loss of a great statesman; but should there really be any fanfare at the passing of the man who presided over the UN during its abysmal failures in Bosnia and Rwanda?

Who is more to blame, Annan or Clinton? The UN is a white elephant which is completely reliant on a few countries who are willing to put its people in harms way.

But you feel that as Secretary General of the UN he should have worked harder to convince the major powers to get involved.