Posted on 09/24/2004 9:02:18 PM PDT by neverdem
Why didn't the UN do it soon as they knew what was going on in Sudan?
The UN does not care about lives. They care about money and power. They serve no good purpose.
Disgusting.
Thank goodness we have the all mighty UN to keep the peace. Now, we need them to band together and bring the same peace and stability to Iraq.
Signed,
John Kerry.
Because they are the UN, a den of thieves, murderers, and dictators.
The U.N. has sat on its hands for years. The U.N is so worried about pleasing everyone, it's not concerned about what the important issues are. These days, the only people that DON'T care about pleasing, is the United States. Thet are decisively anti-American.
In fact...come to think of it, when you put together U.N. and American...you get UN-American. That's precisely what the U.N. is.
Great piece. Thanks for posting it.
The UN has little or nothing to do with conscience these days. It basically is an organization with effects transfer payments, often to the unworthy, while taking a very substantial cut for itself. It typically sucks even as a debating society. Sad to say, at this juncture, it doesn't serve much of a useful purpose.
The UN is only concerned with "pleasing" the murderers and dictators of the world. It's not that they have sat on "their hands". It's that they can't oppose things like this because they would then be opposing themselves.
And, this is the organization that my Pope, John Paul II, wants to exhort to resolve crises.
Meanwhile, George W. Bush, who clearly told the panty-wearing UN assembly on Tuesday that genocide was occurring, is the devil himself in the eyes of the world, the Democrat Party, and the Roman Catholic Church, for daring to liberate 50 million human beings from tyranny.
Humanitarian organizations and religious denominations are worthless in the war on terror. Thank God that men of resolve will use violence to achieve victory over subhuman animals.
Summits, and meetings, and conferences, and negotiations are the refuge of cowardice.
The point of a gun is the only thing this refuse understands.
Brooks nails it. Makes you want to scream at all the nuanced sophisticates!
The usual UN movements -
Perhaps someone should ask Clinton how he was able to convince so many about Yugo. and attacking them - the PR firms did wonders (and that was with only 2,000 est. dead on both sides in one year - vs - over 1 million dead in another nation at the same time) -
But then, I realized that all was still right with the world, for it wasn't the vaunted NYT Editorial Board involved with this scintillating, insightful commentary -- rather, it was an invited op-ed columnist that Doesn't Necessarily Reflect The Views of The Paper.
Good, I can sleep well now. My expectations have not been raised!
He didn't.
No house or senate vote.
No UN.
No allies.
He just did it, and the liberal press spun it later.
Damn, neverdem; that is a beautiful piece of writing. Ironic, mordant, accurate to the point of painful; and sadly utterly true.
Somehow I cannot help but feel the tragedy upon which you expound would have been handled --- if handling is even the appropriate term -- had this nightmare unfolded in Scotland.
One most important fact missing from this op-ed is why the UN will do nothing. Sudan sits on the UN Human Rights Commission. Is it any wonder Bush got such a cool reception from the UN?
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm
He can be pretty good with ridicule and satire.
The Sudanese government was praised because the massacres are proceeding more slowly. The air was filled with nuanced obfuscations, technocratic jargon and the amoral blandness of multilateral deliberation.
They don't act..they might offend the Islamic brothers.
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.