piece really disappoints me coming from you. I didn't like reading it
and I don't like commenting on it. It's a prime example of using
adhominem insinuation and loaded adjectives to make a point.
If the point is so dang good, it ought to make itself, my friend,
without all this venom. I am aware that it is an important item of the
far-right dogma that the UN is arrogant and wants to push the United
States around, and I am sure that if this were a speech made before an
assembly of the faithful, it would generate rousing applause. But if
it is mean to be persuasive it fails utterly.
Going inline now
>WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In September 1931...The> League of Nations
responded >by censuring Tokyo and demanding the withdrawal of Japanese
troops. The >Japanese promptly withdrew from the League, declaring its
deliberations to >be "irrelevant." World War II had begun -- though it
took the Europeans another >seven years to understand.
It took Europeans seven years and the US another seven years after
that. Nuff said.
>This sad, but accurate historical lesson in arrogance and irrelevance
is pertinent >to what transpired at the League's successor -- the
United Nations -- this week.
um, how exactly? And I notice Ollie had to go back 80 years to find
something to pick on. Also where does a man who broke laws because he
felt he knew better get off talking about arrogance? Even if you think
he was justified you have to admit that the man is not exactly a
shining examplar of humility.
>On Tuesday, Sept. 21, the president of the United States stood before
the U.N. >General Assembly and challenged the world body to try --
once again -- to be >relevant in a world threatened by an evil even
more dangerous than fascism: >fanatical terrorism.
Lots of emotion and sarcasm here. "Challenged" and "try" and
"threatened" and "evil" and "dangerous." Wow. Too bad I saw that
speech and thought Bush looked rather silly and delusional. He looked
like a man who was asking for help from people he had previously told
to take a hike :)
How irrelevant can the UN be if Bush says he is providing the serious
consequences it did not? That would indicate to me that he accepts its
judgement that consequences are called for, even if he lacked the
maturity to wait for consensus on on how to produce them. (Yeah, yeah,
"lacked the maturity" is pretty loaded too but hey, you asked me what
I thought :) ) Sure, terrorism is evil. More dangerous than the Nazis,
who annihilated millions of Jews, Poles and homosexuals? Not yet. Some
of them might enjoy wholesale slaughter, but they still mostly lack
the means. Furthermore, I betcha at least half those "terrorists" in
Iraq think they are freedom fighters.
Now, all of that is a big quibble with Ollie's syntax. The UN has it's
problems, sure. It is essentially a big committee, subject to all of
the woes to which committees are subject. It does however provide some
sort of moral point of reference in international affairs, however
flawed and however one might disagree with its individual decisions.
No, it's not a military power. Do you have to be to be relevant?
> In a stirring tutorial, Bush recounted both the threat and horror of what now >emanates from much of the Middle East:
"Stirring tutorial" implies that the man is teaching, further implying
that he knows better than his audience (students). Neutral language
indeed. We big bwana teach-um you bad and good. "Recounted" implies a
factual account as oppose to the harangue that I saw. And wait a
minute, *much* of the middle east? Is this a clue that we are goign
after the rest of the region next? Let's not even bother with the
unsupported "threat" and "horror".
>"Eventually there is no safe isolation from terror networks or failed
states that >shelter them, or weapons of mass destruction."
This is Bush talking. After rejecting help with the reconstruction he
is now accusing non-participants of cowardice.
>He then offered an account of the sacrifice in treasure and lives
being made by >the United States and a handful of allies to protect
the innocent from the bloody >hands of terrorists and generously help
those less fortunate than we. >Unfortunately, U.N. Secretary-General
Kofi Annan, the erratic and secretive leader >of this multibillion
dollar global organization, wasn't listening.
Ai. "Sacrifice", "treasure", "innocent", "bloody hands of terrorists",
"generously" and "less fortunate". Tell us what you *really* think,
Ollie. Not to mention "erratic" and "secretive". And assigning a value
to the UN as if it were, well, Halliburton. Yeah, these are more
quibbles over language, but just another six or seven reasons why
nobody but the already-convinced would read this bit of mental
masturbation.
To answer this bit of nonsense now -- if all of that were true, why
would Bush need to talk to the UN at all? He has found out that gee,
maybe he rushed into things a bit when he decided to go it alone.
There was no sign of terrorism until we got there. When you get right
down to it, the thinking here appears to be that they are against us,
therefore they are terrorists. As Ollie knows very well, if they are
on our side they are freedom fighters :) but he lacks the empathy or
the sense of humor to apply that bit of syntax to the present
situation. As for the bit about generously protecting the innocent :)
Who were we protecting when the museums were looted?
Basically the US has offended an entire region by unilaterally
effecting regime change. Possibly, yes, it needed to happen. Ten years
ago. It would have been best if it had happened at Iraqi hands or
failing that at the hands of a group that could not be suspected of
seeking to apply Manifest Destiny to the Mideast. The UN, for example.
But, although "you did not need to stir up this hornet's nest," as the
British diplomat said, the US has done so. Let's call all the people
resisting US occupation terrorists, just to not quarrel over
terminology. Exactly whom are we protecting from them? Ourselves?
Sure, Saddam was a bad guy. But he was not a terrorist. He did not have to be.
>In his opening remarks, Annan -- who last week declared the U.S.-led
overthrow >of Saddam Hussein to be "illegal"
Nonsense. He said it did not have the support of the Security Council.
When repeated asked by a British reporter if it was then illegal, he
eventually said "if you like," which looked to me like a polite
attempt to see the man's point of view and move on to other matters.
He said it, sure, but he didn't "declare" it. At all.
> -- hectored world leaders to "start from the principle that no one is above the law >and no one should be denied its protection."
Hectored? And what exactly is wrong with this principle?
>He went on to describe his ethical universe: "In Iraq, we see
civilians massacred >in cold blood ... and we have seen Iraqi
prisoners disgracefully abused." >Apparently to Annan, the ghastly,
systematic beheading of innocent civilians is >morally equivalent to
an isolated case of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. Ironically, >as he
was drawing this frightening parallel, a radical Islamic website was
posting >the horrific images of Jack Armstrong being beheaded.
Erm. The beheadings are relatively isolated, actually. Not to diminish
their horror, mind you, but you can't exactly call them systematic. I
think it rather trivializes both crimes to compare them in terms of
numbers this way, but if we must... wouldn't 300+ be more than less
than a dozen? Wouldn't torture and murder by an occupying power be
worse than torture and murder by outlaws?
>Sadly, few in the U.S. media took the time to focus on the hubris or
ethical >inconsistencies in Annan's lecture.
Hubris? You mean unlike invading sovereign nations without planning
for opposition? Ethical inconsistencies? Huh? Where? He thinks it is
bad to go into other countries and kill people. Even if you don't
agree, how is that inconsistent?
>Instead, the potentates of the press rushed to cite the differences
between the >president's challenge to the world body and the approach
offered by his rival, Sen. >John Kerry.
Well, dang those potentates of the press. Covering election speeches
of the opposition and all. How dare they.
>The day before Bush spoke to the General Assembly, the Democrat
nominee >was feted at New York University,
Feted? And the nerve of New York University, asking a political
candidate to speak. And "feting" him, too :) Where's the Patriot Act
when ya need it :)
>where he demanded that in Iraq "the U.N. must play a central role"
and pledged >that if he is elected he will "recruit troops from our
friends and allies for a U.N. >protection force." Who does Kerry want
to lead such a force? Kofi Annan?
I don't think Kofi Annan is a soldier. But you know what, moral
authority is a funny thing. You tell people you have to invade to
protect them from WMD, and then no WMD's are found, but gee your
friends are making millions. And then you wonder why nobody believes
you any more. The sad thing is that we have wasted our moral authority
on a fight that was of our choosing and yet and yet poorly planned for
and now we need help from someone who might be seen as not corrupt.
Like it or not, this is more likely at present to be the UN than
George Bush.
>Since none of the reporters covering the Kerry campaign bothered to
ask that >question at the candidate's press conference this week,
probably because the question is either rhetorical or rather stupid
>we don't know -- but before anyone offers the U.N. Secretary-General
the mantle >of leadership for rebuilding Iraq or fighting terrorism,
it would be wise to examine >his record.
We can. And maybe there is much there to examine. But if the question
is one of international perception....does it really matter what you
or I think? It matters what that kid in Sadr City with the RPG thinks.
>In March 2003, prior to the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom,
I reported >from Kuwait that "senior U.S. military officials were
concerned that Saddam >Hussein was using cash from the U.N. Oil for
Food program to buy votes in the >Security Council."
"Reported", mind you :) And certainly with all due respect to
journalistic ethics. The allegation might be true but there is little
basis here to make the mind up of an open-minded reader who hasn't
researched the matter. Anonymous sources reported at second hand.
That's it.
>The New York Times immediately trashed the charge -- and anonymous
sources >at the United Nations claimed the allegation was
"preposterous" and "unfounded."
"Trashed" :) We don't hear how. Possibly the NYT refuted it point by
point, but the reader here is left to suppose that liberal bias was at
work. And obviously those anonymous sources lack credibility. Wait a
minute....
>But we now know better.
Oh!
> Since then, we have learned
how?
>that cash from the Oil for Food program -- administered directly from
Annan's >office by one of his most trusted aides, Benon V. Sevan, was
used by Saddam >for everything but food.
Grave charge if true. Quite unsubstantiated here of couse.
>The Iraqi dictator used the U.N. provided funds to buy weapons,
finance terror and >enrich officials in the Communist Party of
Slovakia, the Palestinian Liberation >Organization and political
figures in France, Libya, Syria, Indonesia and Russia.
OK so, I have heard the charge before and never investigated it. It
might be true. Certainly no evidence of this is offered here. But if
it is... ok, the UN has suffered from corruption. Does this mean that
they cannot help in the current situation? Who do you think would be
perceived as more disinterested in Iraq? If the UN has flaws that does
not make it irrelevant.
>Despite the presence of U.N. administrators in Baghdad and "auditors"
at the >U.N. headquarters in New York, Saddam was able to offer
"coupons" worth >millions of barrels of Iraqi crude oil to "friendly
officials," who were allowed to sell >them on the market and pocket
huge profits.
Again, indicates corruption if true, and no evidence is offered here.
The current US administration is of course known for the integrity of
its business dealings. See Enron, Halliburton and MCI :)
But again...is the average Iraqi going to suspect the UN of invading
for oil? That's what really matters.
>Did Annan, his cronies or family reap any of this windfall? We don't know
But we are certainly going to imply that this is the case.
>because the U.N. Secretary-General -- so willing to lecture President
Bush about >the "rule of law" -- is accountable to no one.
Lecture? And um. How many people is the US president accountable to? Really?
>And, since U.N. activities are not subject to the laws or the
scrutiny of member >states, he has been able to effectively stonewall
an independent audit of the Oil >for Food program.
No information but again, does the average Iraqi care?
>Meanwhile, Annan stands above the fray, offering little but rhetoric
for dealing with >the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons or the
barbaric genocide taking place in the >Sudan.
The UN is a deliberative body. Annan cannot compel anyone's military
to do anything.
> This arrogance
Arrogance? That they are not participating in the reconstruction after
being told to bugger off, they didn't participate in the invasion?
>flies in the face of Kerry's call to give the United Nations greater
say in how we >protect ourselves from terror
say != military participation. The fact that there are no UN troops on
the ground in Somalia does not change the fact that the invasion of
Iraq would have had greater moral authoity in the world if we had
waited for UN backing. Instead, Bush felt he had to demonstrate his
cojones.
Oh yeah, and let's note in passing, "give" "protect" and "terror."
> -- much less any suggestion that American troops should again don blue berets.
Was this actually suggested? If so I missed it.
>Doing either or both won't make the world body more relevant to
present realities.
If as North suggests above, to be "relevant" is to help provide
security in Iraq, then gee, if they participate then they would be,
wouldn't they. Except oh, they can't be cause they are corrupt.
Except, what does that make Halliburton of the documented
price-gouging contracts, hmm?
>Dealing with corruption at the United Nations might.
Dealing with corruption is always a good thing :) at the UN and in the US :)
</inline>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
