In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris
Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>I cannot see any major financial gain for global imperialism from this
>intervention except for status as peacemakers. And that is in the hands of
>the UN.
>
>This has got to be a progressive move in the growth of world governance and
>part of a serious attempt to show some solidarity with the people of Africa.
A non-sequiteur, surely.
The crusades were not undertaken for financial gain, but they were still
pretty gruesome.
More to the point, I am curious to know why it is you persist in hoping
against hope that somehow the United Nations will represent something
good. Doesn't empiricism come into this at all?
Consider the record of UN interventions since the end of the Cold War:
Iraq 1991 180 000 killed. Subsequently 500 000 deaths through sanctions
and a slow war killing approx 200 a year.
Somalia 1992 80 000 killed
Bosnia 1995 partition and permanent suspension of civilian government
Kosovo 1999 2600 killed, Yugoslavia loses 46 per cent of industry (so
far the surreal estimates of Kosovar deaths have failed to be verified,
with only 400 bodies found)
How many people have to be slaughtered before it occurs to Chris that
there might be a problem with the United Nations?
--
Jim heartfield
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
