September 24, 2006
Another opinion on the UN...
From: [Name Withheld]
Reply-To: cyf-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: September 22, 2006 8:38:36 AM
To: cyf-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE:(cyf-talk) New poll for cyf-talk
The UN is doing exactly what it was built to do – serving as a place for communication that we can all confirm that Chavez and Ahmadinejad are on the warpath. That the majority of Americans are too ignorant of the alliance between the extremist left and their conquering hardcore Jihadists is their own damn fault. The UN works fine the way it is, it allows for dialogue and maintains the current list of nation-states. Sometimes it even allows for joint statements and joint missions. The UN is also somewhat effective with joint “collective professional programs” such as the World Health Organization that can be called on by nations if assistance is needed so long as they are only in a “support” role with no real power.
Beyond that… how can one expect the UN to be a defender of human rights when everyone is allowed a seat at the table? The UN does not in any way shape or form require or even promote democracy let alone free markets, etc. The idea that it is a defender of associated rights is downright silly. The idea that it is a proponent of collective security is even more laughable in its failures to prevent genocide and to include all sides in an open war. In Korea the UN worked to the point that its force was attacked by two Security Council members! The only UN mission that really was a success was ironically enough the first Gulf War - after which the UN oil for food program ripped everyone off and killed countless Iraqis in the resulting embargo. This should be the expected result when the UN tries to be something it is not.
If we want an alliance of democratic free states then one should look to alliances of democratic free states (i.e. NATO). I hope that eventually a SEATO replacement will come about in the Pacific.
The good UN reform agenda which once was to allow for stronger professional programs (i.e. World Health Organization, etc.) and collective security after the Cold War has been hijacked. UN reform is now used by the left in an effort to remove the U.S. veto so that the UN can be hijacked by an influx of unstable, dictatorial regimes (easy to create lots of them quickly), and end up using the International Criminal Court as a tool against the U.S. by threatening to bring to court anyone that stands in their way. Let’s not go there.
Reply-To: cyf-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: September 22, 2006 8:38:36 AM
To: cyf-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE:(cyf-talk) New poll for cyf-talk
The UN is doing exactly what it was built to do – serving as a place for communication that we can all confirm that Chavez and Ahmadinejad are on the warpath. That the majority of Americans are too ignorant of the alliance between the extremist left and their conquering hardcore Jihadists is their own damn fault. The UN works fine the way it is, it allows for dialogue and maintains the current list of nation-states. Sometimes it even allows for joint statements and joint missions. The UN is also somewhat effective with joint “collective professional programs” such as the World Health Organization that can be called on by nations if assistance is needed so long as they are only in a “support” role with no real power.
Beyond that… how can one expect the UN to be a defender of human rights when everyone is allowed a seat at the table? The UN does not in any way shape or form require or even promote democracy let alone free markets, etc. The idea that it is a defender of associated rights is downright silly. The idea that it is a proponent of collective security is even more laughable in its failures to prevent genocide and to include all sides in an open war. In Korea the UN worked to the point that its force was attacked by two Security Council members! The only UN mission that really was a success was ironically enough the first Gulf War - after which the UN oil for food program ripped everyone off and killed countless Iraqis in the resulting embargo. This should be the expected result when the UN tries to be something it is not.
If we want an alliance of democratic free states then one should look to alliances of democratic free states (i.e. NATO). I hope that eventually a SEATO replacement will come about in the Pacific.
The good UN reform agenda which once was to allow for stronger professional programs (i.e. World Health Organization, etc.) and collective security after the Cold War has been hijacked. UN reform is now used by the left in an effort to remove the U.S. veto so that the UN can be hijacked by an influx of unstable, dictatorial regimes (easy to create lots of them quickly), and end up using the International Criminal Court as a tool against the U.S. by threatening to bring to court anyone that stands in their way. Let’s not go there.
