Posted on 05/05/2008 10:53:54 AM PDT by Dawnsblood
Here’s a nice dilemma for Lefties. What if UN peacekeepers in the Congo turn out to have been encouraging elephant poaching? Would they continue to give the organisation their unconditional support?
Elephant poaching in Africa: sanctioned by the UN?
The UN gets away with an extraordinary amount. Because it is thought to embody a lofty ideal, many liberal-minded people are prepared to overlook what it actually does. Never mind that it betrayed the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica. Never mind that its officials were illicitly running oil-for-food scams with Saddam. Never mind that it ordered its local commander not to seize the arms caches that were about to be used for the Rwandan genocide. Never mind that its officials have now been accused of selling arms to the Congolese militias. At least it means well.
I’ve argued before that, for many Lefties, intentions seem to matter more than outcomes. But how bad do the outcomes have to be before intentions are no longer an excuse? What has to happen before people face up to the real UN (or EU or IOC or whatever) instead of fantasising about some abstract one?
Appropriately enough, the kind of people who are most unthinkingly pro-UN tend also to be the ones most opposed to the ivory trade. Intentions over outcomes, you see. In truth, the ban on ivory sales has been calamitous, both for Africans and elephants. Experience shows that it is far more effective to declare elephants the property of the people who own the land they roam, thus giving locals an incentive to treat them as a renewable resource. But, once again, Lefties are less interested in concrete results than in showing what nice people they are: hence the calamitous CITES ban.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
We should have kicked out the UN decades ago.
We can’t. According to the terms of the treaty they have to want to leave, we can’t expel them. Which doesn’t mean we have to remain in the UN or support it financially.
Pretty darned bad, apparently.
I remember when Regan told them where they could go. He threatened to throw them out of New York.
He was the last one.
They should be headquartered in some desert to help them focus on things and not live a cosmopolitan , diplomatically imune lifestyle.
Thanks for posting this...they have long exceeded thier ststed usefulness.
I stopped reading after this sentence. "Srebrenica" is litmus for leftist BS.
The leftists have proven time and time again that they can forgive almost anything as long the individual pushes their goals - World gov’t, wealth redistribution, atheism(anti-Christian as a minimum)/hedonism , anti-American philosophy.
It becomes more painfully apparent as incident after incident is ignored, that there IS no outcome bad enough. People are asleep re the UN.
U.N.’s World Food Program Cried Poverty While Sitting on Cash Stockpile of More Than $1.22 Billion
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353944,00.html
nothing will be ‘bad enough’ for the lefties.
It's a forum from where leaders can address the world.
They do “some” humanitarian things well.
It's a body that has done some good concerning international issues such as trade......
—
The significant thing to remember with the UN is that while they have a purpose, they are neither capable nor do their interests coincide with ours in many cases. It's the epitome of a bureaucracy. Once a noble organization representing the moral high ground and human rights, this organization has degenerated as membership extended to include every Middle Eastern, African, Asian, and Tin Pot Latin American nation. Today the UN is a farce, a place where dictators come together and discuss torture or human rights. It's a place where nations harboring and fueling transnational terrorists sit on pannels "discussing" it, and I'm not over exaggerating. It's an organization which has redefined it meanings of what human rights are so that oppression of woman can be legitimate after all........
The UN is a great organization. As long as people know what it is and where it stands and limit it's influence it's OK. As long as the UN is not directing US economic and security policies it's a great way to work humanitarian issues in Africa or Asia, but do NOT let the scope of this organization creep.
Hang the treaty. Throw them out.
"We will reclaim every lost ounce of American sovereignty. We will lead this country out of the WTO, out of the IMF, and I will personally tell Kofi Annan: Your UN lease has run out; you will be moving out of the United States, and if you are not gone by year's end, I will send you ten thousand Marines to help you pack your bags. "
Say what you will about Pat Buchanan, but more of our "leaders" should have the gonads to stand up to these UN bassturds.
Do we have to provide them with power, light, water, gas, sewer, phones, data lines, cable, etc., or even allow it them connections?
Unfortunately yes, so long as they pay their bill.
Darn. Oh, well.
We’ll just have to drum up grounds to nullify the treaty. Does the UN have any treaty obligations, when they are failing to meet?
Well they're an international agency founded to promote cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress and human rights issues. I think a case can be made that they're failing to meet all of them.
Well thar ya go! Give ‘em an ultimatum “Meet Treaty Obligations or Else!” then kick ‘em out and seize their assets when they fail.
Dictator protection league.
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.