Posted on 10/14/2004 9:42:13 AM PDT by neverdem
But does it pass the international test????????
Ethnic/tribal warfare in Rwanda and other countries in Africa has been going on for decades/centuries. The warfare between the Hutus and the Tutsis is the same old fight between the haves and the have-nots, with race thrown in because the tribes physically differ. How is the UN going to stop this?
to see kofi on the monitors declaring that there was no wrongdoing...bwaahahahahahahahahaha!
Translation: It's the United States' responsibility to stop bad things from happening anywhere in the world. Pay up, U.S. taxpayer!
Yes, what's going on in Sudan is horrible. It's been horrible for the last 10-15 years, when Sudanese Moslems were murdering Sudanese Christians and other non-Moslems.
But Hentoff seems to be suggesting that the United States military is the only effective moral force in the world, and therefore it must be thrown in the way of every group of evildoers there is. I'm sure I'm not the only person here who thinks this is nuts.
Once again, how do we spell RELIEF?
HR 1146.
Write your Reps/Sens ASAP!
Like all other hare brained utopian intellectual schemes, the UN is very bad medicine and should be discarded with no remorse.
I posted the article because it illustrates irony and hypocrisy.
Irony, in that the title is so accurate, yet the United Nations, despite all the corruption in the Oil for Food Program, still confers any sense of legitimacy.
Hypocrisy, in that followers of Islam, the religion of peace, turn their heads when Muslim Arabs persecute and kill Muslim Africans because of racism.
ping
Wouldn't it be refreshing for a liberal such as Nat Hentoff to be the spokesman for the Democrats.
A campaign between an overt Wilsonian and a Reaganite would offer a pro-American platform from both parties, instead of the present hate-America platform of JF'nK and the rest of the leftist riff-raff.
At least, there would be an airing of real issues regarding America in the world, instead of cynical Democratic smear-jobs and Republican defensiveness.
That's an interesting idea. I think Hentoff's position is wrong, but it's more coherent than anything from John Kerry.
In 1994, there were armed UN soldiers. The Hutus had machetes. The UN forces turned tail and ran away without firing a shot. A month later Tutsi rebel forces gained back the country, by then a million Tutsis were slaughtered. I think the UN could have at least set up camps to protect the Tutsis for one month, if nothing else. But this is the UN we're talking about. And Clinton and Albright didn't help matters (it was a mid-term election year don'cha know?)
Hentoff actually believes in the promise of America.
He's a little too ACLU for my tastes, but there is no doubt he knows the difference between liberty and tyranny.
And, he doesn't have to clear his opinions with the French. ;^)
Water is wet.
The sky is blue
The Pope is Catholic.
Dogs love fire hydrants.
Cats love fish
Dope fries your brain.
Fire hurts.
Gravity is uncompromising.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
??????????????????????????????????
See also:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1245067/posts
"The seven organizations, a hodgepodge of "welfare rights" groups and international war protesters, have asked the UN's Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) for U.N. intervention in the upcoming U.S. presidential election. The groups claim that, by funneling their request through ECOSOC, all that's required for U.N. observers to invade the U.S. electoral process next month is the approval of the 54-nation ECOSOC council."
If people want on or off this list, please let me know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.