U.N. Votes no Confidence on Annan; Palpatine promises an end to corruption
 

It's not very important, its UN Staff, so it doesn't really affect reforms. It'll get resolved eventually probably.

I still fully support Annan, as does the entire international community except a few in the US, so as of now, hes not going anywhere.

Actually, he is. His term as Secretary General ends next year, and the Asian bloc has been waiting 15 years for their turn to hold the Secretary General's office.

Yeah, but that's not for any reason other than his term is merely finished, it isn't him being forced to resign or anything, which is what I meant. Sorry for not being clear.

I beg to differ. They voted him out as a message. They're saying that if you fuck with their job security, they will force you out of office. I think that really has an effect on reforms.

So much for serving a greater good. I always thought institutions like the UN were places where governments dumped their party's air-headed idealists. Guess bureaucracy gets everywhere, eventually.

From the article you used:

The UN is an international body, it doesn't matter what staff think because frankly, its not a body for employment. What matters is what other countries think.

I guess the only analogy I can use to describe what I see when I look at this situation is this. Imagine someone shoots at me. Now, I can't stop the bullets that have been fired, but I can stop any further ones from being fired be breaking off the guys knees, ripping out his finger nails, then tearing off his head and putting it on a Pike. It's a great way to send a message for any further actions like the previous one, but it can't change what's already been done.

Except you'd probably be dead by the first bullets. Horrible analogy.

What are you even asking for here Robo? You seem to support the no confidence vote in Annan, which came about because he suggested fixing the U.N.

Do you support a broken international body or something?

When have they ever really worked in the first place?

Do we know who specifically might be pining for the seat now? And I am just wondering, how will that be decided?

At the basic level, the Secretary General is appointed by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council, which means that the SecGen candidate must be acceptable to the five permanent members.

Traditionally, the position rotates through regions, but has been with Africa longer than usual, since Boutrous Boutrous-Ghali, an Egyptian, only served one term, and was replaced by Annan, a Ghanan, who won a second term. This kept the seat from Asia, which means they're very keen on getting it now. And while I read a piece by Richard Holbrooke with more candidates, I can't find it now. Still, though, Thai Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai is supposed to be the frontrunner.

World War 3 hasn't broken out. That is of course it's primary purpose.

Wasn't that MAD's primary purpose?

The United Nations wasn't and still isn't very good at stopping wars. Just like it's predecessor the League of Nations. That's not really it's purpose anyhow. The organization is mean't to foster greater international cooperation. It has to a certain extent, but the world at large doesn't agree with each all the time. A consensus can't even be reached on how to reform the UN.