Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Confusion and moral error at the United Nations
The U.N.'s fetish for moral equivalence is bad enough, but sometimes the United Nations drifts into rank moral error. When that happens, it is very easy to despise.
8 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Apr 19, 12:31:00 AM:
Has there ever been a reason to expect anything better from the UN since the outrageous "Zionism is racism" resolution in 1974?
By 
The Mechanical Eye, at
Thu Apr 19, 01:44:00 AM:
So, American liberals and U.N. bureaucrats are just cheerleading terrorists on, getting orgasmic over dead American servicemen? How fortunate of you to have such ogres as opponents! How can anyone with an ounce of morality disagree?
I'm a little less positive. While you and Mr. May are positively disgusted by some anonymous U.N. offical badmouthing the Red White and Blue, neither of you say anything of substance about the actual problem -- that millions of Iraqis are fleeing their country, and that everyone with the brains, the luck, or the money is getting the hell out.
You find it a "moral error" to suggest that America might somehow, in some strange, bizarre way, might be responsible for stopping these terrorists after controlling the country for four years. This, after countless promises about how "progress is being made?"
And didn't many people state that getting terrorists to come into Iraq was the plan all along, thanks to the "flypaper strategy?"
Something's amiss here, and it ain't the U.N.
DU
By , at
Thu Apr 19, 03:32:00 AM:
Dummies and Kos Kidz don't get it:
Iran is just like Hitler's Germany:
*Wipe Jews off the map? Check.
*Try to get a nuke? Check.
*World Domination? Check.
*Assassination of dissidents? Check.
*Execution in brutal ways of Gays? Check.
And most notably:
*Send a Condor Legion aka Iranian Intelligence to Iraq and Afghanistan to blow up innocents? Check.
Mechanical -- the violence is suicide bombings and political killings, done by Shia and Sunni including Al Qaeda death squads funded by Iran, supplied by Iran, and trained by Iran.
In Afghanistan and Iraq.
Now maybe you want to blame the US for everything from the Hundred Years War to Genocide in Darfur. But the rest of us who don't demand Angelic Standards of heavenly perfection among our Country and excuse the most beastly conduct of our enemies might have a different view.
The UN is as bankrupt and useless as the League of Nations. Time for it and the Libs who resemble the Bundists like Lindbergh (that "man of peace") to perhaps try backing the side of those fighting to make Iraq something other than a Saddam Hussein hellhole.
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Apr 19, 06:28:00 AM:
DU,
Al Qaeda, quite specifically and deliberately, slaughtered hundreds of UN workers in Iraq in the summer of 2003. Al Qaeda blew up the United Nations headquarters, and Americans rescued and treated the survivors. The response of the United Nations was to wash its hands of the place. Now, it is surely entitled to do so however contemptible that might be, but for a U.N. bureaucrat then to deny that al Qaeda was then and is now at war with the United Nations itself strikes me beyond disingenuous. It is like a Russian in 1939 blaming France and Britain for Germany's invasion.
By Gordon Smith, at
Thu Apr 19, 08:01:00 AM:
I contrast this post with the one about journalistic ethics above.
The journalistic ethics of reporting that the VT shooter was Chinese not Korean aren't really in question. You're right. They reported a rumor in a feeding frenzy media without an ounce of restraint. Poor taste and bad reporting, yes. Unethical, no. It seems the reporter just wanted an excuse to go after Fox News and Drudge. They're both worth going after, but there are other, more plausible ways of singling them out.
Your post here references an anonymous quote from "A UN official", and you quickly use it to impugn the entire body. Unethical? Poor taste? Either way it's clumsy and oafish.
I understand your reflexive need to bash the UN and defend Fox News, but I hope I can keep coming here for your more thoughtful posts.
By , at
Thu Apr 19, 08:17:00 AM:
Hoolie ... you may be right, that blogging about an anonymous official at the UN is clumsy, but the UN is a pathetic useless organization. That shouldn't be in question. It is nothing more than a forum where countries who contribute nothing to the collective peace effort, in money, manpower, will or otherwise, to have near equal footing with countries who do. Let's face it. When was the last time the UN actually took the lead in dealing with attrocities on this globe, where some nation other than the US, UK, Australia actually stepped up?
Where's the UN in Darfur, or anywhere else, even after years of that criminal Annan? he virtually ignored Africa.
We wind up with "smart people" whining about contributions of the US in terms of GDP to world affairs, and discount the money spend on the military efforts (yes, they're necessary), or the trade imbalance we maintain with everyone to build economies around the globe. We wind up with third stringers like Blix doing "inspections" (OK, I'm ready for the quarter flip on my bed now) or fiends as "human rights" sponsors.
The UN is an insult to those who pay taxes in America, and our participation is a worthless exercise.
By , at
Thu Apr 19, 03:30:00 PM:
Screwy Hoolie said,
Your post here references an anonymous quote from "A UN official", and you quickly use it to impugn the entire body. Unethical? Poor taste? Either way it's clumsy and oafish.
Hoolie, I agree that the quote from "A UN official" blaming violence on Iraq on the US is poorly authenticated. However, to prove that not "entire UN" is guilty of the charge, perhaps you can present a quote by some other UN official (anonymous will do) publicly blaming Iraq violence at least in part on AQ or other terrorist group. Can you do that?
Just one quote, for the clumsy and the oafish, please?
By , at
Fri Apr 20, 12:41:00 AM:
Time to kick the whole damn UN out of america and have nothing to do with the UN
