Neo-cons Can't Have It Both Ways

[cincinnati_liberal]

I love how they bring up how Saddam Hussein violating UN resolutions as justification then turning around and calling the UN pussies or a 'defunct institution'. They pick and chose how they use the UN to advance their agenda. If the UN didn't matter when we decided to invade Iraq, then how can we use violations of their sanctions as grounds to invade. Just another example of hypocrisy.

PS-Listen to Jerry http://www.springerontheradio.com 9am-12pm

[peacetalksforall]

1. Not only do they use them for hate or authority (or justification)....

in their hate, they spread hate by equation. The UN is foreign, therefore, all foreigners are to be hated. In the end, over time, adding it all up - the cabal has convinced the followers and swallowers that the UN and all foreign people are our enemy. They have spread distrust among people who don't get it. They will not allow that the UN is a way for all people to figure out a way to help all people. Contempt for the UN is just another way of expressing the claim of our false superiority.

I feel contempt for a portion of the people who won't work with an existing structure for peace, survival, and accord.

[trezic]

2. I disagree a bit

The UN has a pretty poor record over the last 30 years or so. When it was clear that Soviet expansionism was a threat, India and others manipulated the General Assembly to make America and the USSR appear morally equal. Things like the Idi Amin resolution denouncing Israel didn't help the cause.

Personally, I think it's probably time to leave the UN and invite them to leave New York. Our interests just aren't served with the current structure. It's to China's general advantage, as it was for the USSR, to block or temper most American initiatives through the Security Council.

Alliances, on the NATO model, would be a better move. A series of overlapping alliances around the world would be easier to manage if only because there would be less members in each.

The UN was never a very good idea. It was an embarrassingly idealistic mistake near the end of America's greatest president (and pragmatist), FDR.

[CWebster]

3. I have to wonder...

Weren't you the one bashing Kennedy as a despicable liberal and "Mr Chappaquiddick"?

There is a difference between criticizing Democrats for being inept - but it is something altogether different in smearing Democrats for being Democrats.

The UN is a human institution, and has its problems- but it's integrity, and it's intent, puts the US government to shame.

[trezic]

4. What integrity?

The UN is a glorified debating society. It was founded on the premise that all nations had a common interest and work together for it. That's just not true. It's simply too large, with too many divergent interests to work effectively except in fits and spurts. That's why the US has felt free for the last 50 years to disregard it regularly. I don't advocate the unilateralist position. I think alliances are a better way to go.

As for integrity, I fail to see any. The General Assembly gets hijacked by the Non-aligned movement in the 60s, which produces resolutions condemning the US for having the temerity to oppose the forcible expansion of Stalinism. Then, in the 70s, we get Idi Amin, IDI FUCKING AMIN, having a resolution passed in that Assembly implicitly calling for the destruction of Israel.

The UN sat with its thumb up its butt in the 90s while the Balkans went up in flames. Who went in to fix that? NATO.

Rwanda. Kofi Annan was the UN High Commissioner for Refugees at the time and did nothing. Of course, neither did the US. The US, however, did not complain of civilian casualties when the Tutsi army took over Rwanda while shielding genocidal maniacs who had slaughtered 800,000-1,000,000 people in just a few weeks. Civilian casualties are always bad, but I fail to see how degree of evil matches. People died when an outside force invaded Rwanda to stop ongoing genocide. By that logic, the deaths of civilians in Europe at the hands of the Allies were as much a crime as Treblinka.

I wasn't aware that I was smearing Democrats for being Democrats. If you meant my comment about FDR, it was a mix of fact and opinion. FDR was a great pragmatist. I feel that he made a mistake with the UN because he thought WW2 would somehow repeal national interest.

As for Ted Kennedy, I didn't 'bash' him for being a liberal. I called him an elitist windbag who has lost touch with an older, better Democratic heritage. Teddy is a fashionable liberal. He loves to argue the soft issues all day long, but can only blow wind when it comes time to make the hard decisions. As for the Chappaquiddick comment, that was pretty low of me. That I do regret saying.