Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

My, my, Eric -

Child rape. Murder. Torture. Embezzlement. Corruption. Graft. Using charity for illicit gain. Cronyism. Incompetence. Sexual predation. Standing by as genocide takes place,

I thought for a minute you were talking about American society where this stuff goes on all the time. Except for genocide, - we were never held accountable for the genocide of many, many dozens of American Indian tribes, nor for the lynchings and murders of blacks in the last century and before.

Then I notice you were talking about the UN, an organziation in which we are a chief player. Ahhh… then it all made sense.

Eric
you mentioned in closing organized crime. Let us be novel and turn the UN over to La Cosa Nostra and the UN then becomes organized crime in America. They then would not have imunity and we would have a big party with busting all those high self serving servants of evil.

AMEN on all that you said!

Eric, I’m not saying the UN isn’t corrupt, but how hypocritical can you get? I suggest we fix this country before we go around telling others what to do.

Dave Remer and Tom apparently think the U.S. is everything the E.U. morons think it is. I Suggest they either leave the country if they are here or stay in whatever cesspool of a nation they live in now if they aren’t. I can’t think of any country in the world that has a problem with people sneaking into it save Canada.

David,

I’m not sure how you can just explain away all the crimes committed by the UN, it’s mind boggling. I’m talking about rampant bribery, graft, cronyism of the worst kind.

David, stop for a second and comtemplate the significance of just one act.

…a U.N. staff member forced defense lawyers to pay him kickbacks to process their payments at the International Criminal Tribunal for the genocide in Rwanda.

This is a court of justice. The UN is a liberal icon. The hope of the left for peace on earth. If this happens in a case of such import, it’s not just an aberation, it’s the norm.

The reason the left refuses to examine such things is because the UN is an exemplar leftist organization. Founded purely on the concept of serving the ‘common good’.

Why is it that the theory and the practice of liberalism is always diametrically opposite?

Bruce
Get hold of yourself. How do you read into my post anything but what it says? EU? Come on, gimme a break. The mob and UN exchange I think is a good idea. For the sole purpose of having all those criminals in the UN off of immunity so we can put them in the slammer for a number of long hot summers. For pete’s sake keep the EU out of it.

Bruce
Also, I was born in the good ole USA. Telling someone to leave because they misread or disagree with their position is the height of un-Americanism. I probably have done more to preserve the peace and promote the general welfare in my years than you could dream of doing. I usually don’t brag and I am usually thick skinned but when somebody orders me out of my home (the USA), that sorta stirs me up just a little bit. I would never tell you to leave your country, unless you were under oppression and were looking for a refuge.

Bruce:

Instead of them leaving, maybe YOU should volunteer for the Army instead. Prove to us that you are willing to Spread Freedom. The Army needs you. So far, the only thing Republicans do is tie yellow ribbons to their SUVs. Serve your Country and tell us about when you get there.

Uncle Bush wants YOU!!!!!!!

btw. The UN is only an extension of the Countries in it. Its like the Ku Klux Klan with the US, England, etc as members. You are only insulting yourself when you insult the UN.

Besides. For all your whiny talk, you have never suggested that the US LEAVE the UN. Maybe you should focus on that instead of the UN instead. Write your Senators: LEAVE THE UN.

Thanks Eric for a timely reminder. Dems are so worried about offending these thugs by sending Bolton there to challenge them that they are trying to drag his nomination down by trivial instances of his bold management style. Give the guy a break. He is effective as hell and a real American to boot. About time we took care of America First! Amen!!

Remer: You are so full of self-injected poison that I am at a loss on how to reach you. So, I give up.

Aldous
You said the all that republicans do is tie ribbons, blah blah. I am a Republican and I am writing this post from Basra. You obviously have no clue as to the makeup of the military. Across all branches, conservatives, i.e. Republicans outnumber Dems(libs) by a wide margin. Justlook at the historical voting record. At least Republicans will visibly support the military, as opposed to the libs who seem to only point out when something goes wrong.

Aldous said: “So far, the only thing Republicans do is tie yellow ribbons to their SUVs. Serve your Country and tell us about when you get there.”
My Army Commendation medal with “V” for valor and my Bronze Star medal tend to disagree with you. Do you really want to compare?

Eric, it is bad, I know, some of what has happened under UN auspices. But, c’mon, worse than Enron? Worse than the Savings & Loan debacle which cost this nation more than 9/11 did?

I am all for making the UN better. But, I am also all for making the US better. Leaving the UN is not an option. The UN without the US will simply result in an international agency operating without the benefit of our input and idealism. That won’t serve us or the rest of the world.

The UN simply needs laws and enforcement with teeth. The hypocrisy is that the US does not want to be subjected to such laws with teeth. The US does not want a world court, does not want to answer to a higher authority either militarily or internationally in area of law. So, it is the height of hubris to send someone like Bolton who will insist that other countries subject themselves to the very constructs we refuse to be subjected to. Bolton will only stiffen international resistance toward the US.

RKumra, thank you… I never wanted to be reached by prejudiced self-righteous individuals who believe they know better than I how I should think. :-)

Bruce, got to get a tickle out of your love it, or leave it remarks. Demonstrates such intellectual sophistication, and DISCRIMINATING taste, that one is bowled over… :-;

tomd:

Thank you for your service to our country. I thank you for my and my family’s freedom. Along with slavery and abortion, the treatment of our veterans is one of the great crimes of the citizens of this country.

David, I am not willing to give up the sovernity (please excuse the spelling) of the United States to anyone, especially to an orginization like the UN.
You seem to me to be totally against the United States. In your eyes do we as a nation do anything right?

Bruce said: “Dave Remer and Tom apparently think the U.S. is everything the E.U. morons think it is. I Suggest they either leave the country”

Bruce, I suggest you Critique Dave’s and Tom’s message, and leave them as messengers alone instead of suggesting they leave the country if you want to remain as a commentor on WatchBlog. Our policy is clearly stated in the header of each column.

tomd, we do more good in the world than any other nation on earth in terms of foreign aid, and intelligence communities, and fostering democratic ideals. We can do this because we are the most powerful and wealthiest nation on the earth.

But, realistically, with regard to the UN, your statement says it all. We don’t want to be held accountable to the UN so, why should any other nation or individual want to be held acccountable to the UN? We are becoming the great instigator for the demise of the UN rather than a great force for strengthening and redirecting the UN to live up to its promise and founding mission.

As someone else said above, we need to get our own act together before we can expect other nations to follow our lead. And follow our lead is precisely what Americans want to see other nations do.

David,
I don’t think anyone should be held accountable to the UN. I think the UN should be abolished.

Once again the question posed in the title of the original post has not been addressed by a single contributer. I believe the topic posed for discussion was “Revoke Boltons Nomination”. So far that has generated discussion on Kofi Anan, the UN’s effectiveness, whether countries should leave the UN, corruiption of UN officials and Republicans with yellow ribbons.

It seems that regardless of what the core issue is, this board is consistently used by posters who want to advance their own views on politics, morality, religion, ethics and, of course the ego trip of impressing everyone else with their alledged fluency on all topis. How about getting back to the Bolton issue (which, I believe was a core topic a week or so ago).

Along with slavery and abortion, the treatment of our veterans is one of the great crimes of the citizens of this country.

I agree. It’s shameful what Republicans have done to veterans.

Eric, this is just a silly rant that’s been done to death. The UN is as strong as the US makes it. If you’re going to blame someone for Rwanda, blame Clinton and the Republican Congress who refused to commit ground troops to stop the genocide. Same goes for Bush and Darfur.

And it’s idiotic to think Bolton is going to “challenge the UN” to reform. He’s a mouthpiece for Bush on the council, just like Negroponte was. And Negroponte is a much more capable man.

The UN needs reform. It’s programs need greater transparency. But really, it took a decade for some group of people there to skim $1.7 billion from the oil for food program. In the same amount of time, the US allowed Saddam to smuggle $11 billion worth of oil out of the country, and in just over a year in Iraq, the US military “misplaced” $8.8 billion in oil for food funds.

tomd, you’re just wrong.

steve, the context of the title is Bush shouldn’t send Bolton because he should just disband the UN. How do you respond to nonsense like that?

I don’t think telling US citizens to leave America is very productive.
I Do however, think telling the UN to leave America would be very productive.
Just think how much joy they could bring to the world if they lived closer to their work?
Rwanda might be a good choice, but you could pick any of the other turdworld country.They could even rotate around the world every 5 yrs. or so, once they fix one sewer they could move to another.
It could even be cost effective, how much could a big mudhut to live and work from cost?

Just an idea.

I haven’t heard of anything the UN has done to better the world. If anyone can come up with anything, please let me know…Until then I say the UN should be abolished.

I would be among those who support dissolution of the UN. My question is What action is necessary to do so? Is there a vote of the member countries, does it (the UN) cease to exist if the number of member countries drops below a certain number, is a country assessed a penalty of some sort for non-membership?

I am assuming that a country’s ambassador to the UN is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the current political powers for whom it speaks/votes, etc. That being the case, who cares who the individual is. Somebody not liking him is not going to change his country’s position on the issue(s).

IMO “dont shoot the messenger” applies to Bolton. If our president is comfortable with him, so be it.

Secondly, if we lived by the saying “If your heart isn’t in America, get your (insert farm animal name) out” we would be better off.

Steve and tomd, if the UN did not exist, where would countries go to have their gievances heard? If the UN did not exist, who would mediate international disputes? If the UN did not exist, we would have to invent one, to create political cover for the US so that the rest of the world did not view all the world’s woes a product of the most influential, most powerful, and wealthiest nation’s fault. Which of course they aren’t. But, without the UN, the US would become the world’s scapegoat, increasing our enemies.

The UN provides a stage upon which nations project their intentions, biases, desires, needs, and grievances, however overtly or covertly. And on that stage, their motives and intentions can be examined in the light of reason and responded to. The UN permits other nations a global sounding board and feedback loop which for many, moderates their thinking and plans to conform to that light of reason which they know will shine penetratingly upon their international affairs and relations.

In other words, the Heisenberg principle is at play in the UN and mostly in a positive way. The act of declaring one’s position helps move nations toward rational and reasoned positions, which might not occur or develop without the scrutiny of the other nations upon them.

Hmm… UNICEF, Golan Heights, UNHCR, Bosnia, WHO, Haiti, IAEA, Asian tsunami aid, East Timor… Any of those ring a bell, tomd? There’s plenty more. How about the international rule of law? Where do you think the US gets legitimacy to project force, like overthrowing that tyrant Milosovic and stopping genocide in Kosovo? What created an environment where commerce could be done globally?

The only reason I saw you give for abolishing the UN was that you were afraid the US would cede it sovereignty. That’s ridiculous.

The UN is a collection of 191 sovereign states who each jealously guard their independence. That’s why it’s hard to get anything done there - and that’s why what does get done there is so effective. It has the moral force of the world behind it.

By all means, let’s reform it. I blogged here on UN reform before. But learn what it is and what it does before making unthinking calls to abolish it.

David Remer,

“Where would countries go to have their grievances heard”.
TO THE COUNTRY WITH WHICH THE PERCEIVED GREIVANCE LIES.

“Who would mediate international disputes”
THE COUTRIES SPECIFICALLY INVOLVED IN THE DISPUTE. WHY WASTE EVERYONE ELSE’S TIME.

“But without the UN, the US would become the world’s scapegoat, increasing our enemies”
ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT WE ARE NOT CURRENTLY THE WORLD’S SCAPEGOAT? HOW MANY COUNTRIES OF ANY MEANINFUL SIZE OR ASSETS ARE NOT ALREADY OUR ENEMIES?

A possible alternative would be to have a panel of a small group of countries each representing a larger region of countries who would conduct analyses of issues of import and make reccomendations for solution. The countries in each geographical area would make their own decisions on how the issue will be dealt with. The group can rotate their representative every year or so to create the illusion of equality and fairness.

On another topic, this might permit countries to reduce, increase or eliminate the number of embassies it allows. We could save a ton of money on embassy staffing maintenance, rebuilding the ones that get bombed, etc. With that cost saving alone we could cure a disease.

I agree, revoke Bolton’s nomination. The UN is another matter. You generalize so badly, so exclusively, that I wonder whether you even bothered to research much of what the UN has done at all. Maybe it’s because saying the UN only has problems is not sufficient cause to wreck an organization that has kept the world out of full scale wars for the last half century. Maybe it’s because it’s easier to blame the UN for being stubborn and corrupt than an administration that has wasted billions in taxpayers dollars to wage a war it can no longer justify on its original premises.

Fact is, we have neglected our leadership on human rights, on international law, and on waging wars by legitimate means. We have not privileged position from which to criticize other countries that do the same. Our administration is crippling our ability to stand as moral leaders.

We cannot go to the UN and complain about the aggression of rogue nations having waged a preemptive war on faulty justifications. We cannot go to the UN and complain about corruption in our ranks when our own oil sales scandal dwarfs their considerably. We cannot talk of freedom and democracy while supporting despots and continuing to occupy a country indefinitely, as it seems this government is wont to do. We cannot go their and talk about human rights abuses with our own as front page news. And no, the answer isn’t to keep it out of the media, the answer is to clean up our act.

What good does it do to tend to our country’s image so aggressively, to curse and scapegoat the media, when we won’t keep our act straight, and deprive folks of the actions and words that feed the rot in our reputation?

There is a point where we simply have to do the right thing and not care what people think about it, but that point has rarely been reached, and has been reached not at all with this administration’s actions. At some point we need to take responsibility for our actions, and start doing the right thing even if costs us some short term satisfaction. Defeating our enemies will be worthless if we destroy what’s good in ourselves and our country.

“Hmm… UNICEF, Golan Heights, UNHCR, Bosnia, WHO, Haiti, IAEA, Asian tsunami aid, East Timor… Any of those ring a bell, tomd?”

And I repeat… Show me some things that the UN has done to better the world…All of these projects were full of corruption and I don’t think any of them worked.

steve-

Where would countries go to have their grievances heard”.
TO THE COUNTRY WITH WHICH THE PERCEIVED GREIVANCE LIES.

Bad idea. Talks, even before the UN, were generally held in neutral territory. This is done to avoid one side or another from putting pressure on things. This is why the Bosnia talks were held in Dayton Ohio, half a world away from the Balkans. The UN acts as the ultimate neutral territory

Who would mediate international disputes” THE COUTRIES SPECIFICALLY INVOLVED IN THE DISPUTE. WHY WASTE EVERYONE ELSE’S TIME.

Because few country’s interests are so isolated in todays globalized times. We cannot isolate ourselves. If China goes to war with Taiwan, what do you think happens to Walmart?

Before the UN, the great powers raised great big walls of protectionist economic policies around their colonies, stifling the free market. Do you really want a return to those kinds of economic arrangments?

But without the UN, the US would become the world’s scapegoat, increasing our enemies” ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT WE ARE NOT CURRENTLY THE WORLD’S SCAPEGOAT? HOW MANY COUNTRIES OF ANY MEANINFUL SIZE OR ASSETS ARE NOT ALREADY OUR ENEMIES?

How many have we degraded our relations with, for the sake of unnecessary, counterproductive war? Other countries are always going to have their own interests. That’s why we negotiate, so we can align our interests and theirs in mutually profitable ways.

We still trade with China, still work with the EU on things- we are not yet to the point where we are in open warfare, economic hostilities, or at a diplomatic breaking off point.

I think the GOP and yourself define the sense of the term enemies far too broadly, and by doing so cut off means of negotiations with those who could align their interest to ours.

Part of the whole point and benefit of the UN is that it preserves American power. We can’t do anything we want, true enough, but that’s the point. The UN removes the motivation of other countries to destroy our power in the world. It is a reflection of America’s democratic philosophy of sharing power, rather than hording it in one place.

You see riots and revolutions in other countries you don’t see in ours, because we remove much of the motivation from those in disadvantage positions to take extralegal action to improve their lot in life. We allow people their choices in beliefs, religions, and expression, and force the government to meet certain criteria before depriving them of those rights. We let off the steam and avoid the frustrations that bring the political atmospheres of so many other countries to the boiling point. The UN is about doing the same, and until we embrace this kind of democratic gathering on a world scale, we have no moral position from which to advocate for freedom in general.

Eric,

People have been calling for America to get out of the UN from the moment that we helped create it.
Since that time America has done it’s best to undermine the ideals that the UN was founded upon.
America itself, has supported virtually every tin hat, third world despot, that came down the pike. As long as it was in America’s self interest, it didn’t matter that those same despots raped, pillaged, or tortured their populus, if they bought our weapons, well, that was ok with us.

Look around the world, and look at the middle east in particular. Name three brutal regimes that we haven’t supported there in the last 60 years.
America wants a UN with teeth, but won’t take part in the dental plan. Hey, it’s our way or the highway.
You have to ask yourself, if the UN never existed, would the be a better place?
I would submit that the answer would be a resounding no.

“You have to ask yourself, if the UN never existed, would the be a better place?”

Sorry, that should read,

You have to ask yourself, if the UN never existed, would the world be a better place?

Stephen Dougherty,

Thank you for responding to the questions I posed to David Remer. Since this is an open forum I am sure that David appreciates your support.

I am not saying that it’s a bad thing but your responses often read like magazine articles and are very proessorial in delivery. I can almost see you at a lecturn delivering a lecture on UN 101.

Additionally you have a tendancy to answer questions with questions and
make an effort to align me (because of my views) with others. I think this is a dis-service to myself and to the others and constitutes an avoidance of a direct answer.

Steve, Stephen’s answer is pretty much the same I would respond with.

The reason the world did not react far more dramatically to our invasion of Iraq was precisely because of the UN Security Council’s having established the no-fly zones and repeatedly warning Iraq of its violations of international law.

Try to imagine the world’s reaction, especially Islamic nations, to our invasion of Iraq had there been no UN and no World Security Council’s condemnation of Iraq’s previous actions as a backdrop to our invasion. It is mind-boggling to imagine and could have even resulted in a string of reactions leading to WWIII.

At the very least, without a UN, our invasion of Iraq would have multiplied terrorism against the US by magnitudes of order.

“I am not saying that it’s a bad thing but your responses often read like magazine articles and are very proessorial in delivery.”

steve,

Unlike some of us, Mr. Daugherty appears to take the time to spell check and inspect his writing for syntax errors. It is nice to see someone that not only takes the care nescessary to get his point accross, but actually takes the time to be informed enough to make it.
Many of us would do well to try and emulate his writing skills.

Rocky,

In your post of May 22, 2005 1:54 PM you use a word that is mispspelled.

you write “populus”

correct spelling is “populous”

What does emulate his writing skills refer to?
Do you mean grammar, punctuation and spelling?

I happen to strongly believe that many of Mr. Daugherty’s dissertations rarely directly respond to a question but rather are used as a forum to express his personal views irrespective of the core topic.

Your recent post in which you respond to Eric invites improvement in terms of your attitude toward the support of your country, assuming of course that your country is America.

Steve,

If you want to be picky. Please define this word from the post ahead of mine.

“proessorial”

Also,
“Your recent post in which you respond to Eric invites improvement in terms of your attitude toward the support of your country, assuming of course that your country is America.”

Huh??

The world was told when the UN was founded that they were to be a peace keeping organization. The Charter for The UN uses the phrase peace enforcement. Since 1989 there have been over 25 countries where they were involved in the internal affairs that they were a dismall failure at keep any peace. Why has the UN not lived up to any form of peace. An examination of the Charter of the UN would be in order.

steve,

My attitude?

Please tell me how the truth has anything to do with atitude.

These would be some of those despots:

Saddam
The Shah of Iran
Ferdinand Marcos
Allende
Noriega

Let’s not forget that we supported Taliban by way of Bin Laden against the Soviet Union.

Do I need to go on?

You guys are highly critical of the role that the UN has played throughout history. If we want to improve something, let us get our own house in order first.

Rocky,

You are the one who brought up spelling, grammar, etc. not me.

the word I used was “proessorial”
my intended word was
professorial”

I am sensitive to phrases like (from your post in response to Eric)

“America has done it’s best to undermine the ideals”

Your second paragraph beginning with “
America itself” Implication that we support rapists, pillagers and torturers as a matter of course.

“America wants a UN with teeth, but won’t support the dental plan”. “Hey, it’s our way or the highway”

Should your despot list also include Castro?

Where are the despots of which you speak now?

“Your second paragraph beginning with “
America itself” Implication that we support rapists, pillagers and torturers as a matter of course.

“America wants a UN with teeth, but won’t support the dental plan”. “Hey, it’s our way or the highway”

steve,

If you knew your history, you would know that, in the past, we have supported some of the scum of the earth. I make this statement without qualification, as this has been a bi-partisan effort on America’s part.

America wants a strong UN, but won’t back world efforts like the World Court, because, God forbid, we should someday screw the pooch on something or another.

Oh, BTW, I did say that they were “some” of the despots.
Last time I checked, the Taliban were trying to make a comeback in Afganistan. It would appear that like in Iraq, the Afgan goventment only has partial control of the country.

It sounds like we are getting into personal attacks now. I won’t participate in that but I still see no reason to keep the UN.

Thank you tomd, for taking the lead on halting the personal side of the discussion. It is important we all follow tomd’s lead.

To : Rocky
cc : All other posters this thread
: Watchblog Manager

If in my enthusiasm you consider that portions of my dialogue appeared to be and/or were considered personal, please accept my apologies.

I will continue to post with enthusiasm and, as you have seen, my position on most issues tends to be extremely conservative. Some might even say somewhat to the right of center.

I disagree, let the senate reject Bolton.

Then send up Jimmy Carter.

If you are going to remove the UN, the US will need to do its job instead. That means polio vaccinations, food aid, keep children from prostitution, etc.

I am very happy the US Taxpayer is willing to pay for all that.

steve,

I took no offence, and meant none either. I also have a passion.

I would be among those who support dissolution of the UN.

This is a dandy idea. After all, we already killed the League of Nations a number of years ago, and look what a humdinger of an idea that turned out to be. The UN is an obvious danger to the U.S., no doubt hiding many a document of mass destruction that our best intelligence assures us is there. (British intelligence says the same thing, no doubt). Let’s get all those horrible diplomats off our streets immediately. I too believe they’re raping the minds of the world’s children with their dangerous liberal nonsense about trying to preserve world peace. And there’s little doubt they’re just murdering New York’s taxi drivers with their uninterpretable accents.

And why the heck should we let the UN create a virtual memorial to the UN workers who died in Iraq? Insanity! I say we bomb or defame any nation or organization that has ever memorialized any person who has died in any conflict. Memorials are an obvious sign of international wimpyhood. I say we all forget all the disasters the world has ever seen so we can start fresh. The UN is an obvious impediment to this grand plan.

I also say that, as in the Revenge of the Sith, we just do away with any multilateral peace-keeping organizations and turn everything over to an emperor who can set things straight. Look how well that always turns out for the galaxy. Yes, let us all go over the Dark Side. I hear they’ve got better restuarants there. And in the darkeness everybody very conveniently looks like an enemy.

Steve-
Do I answer question with questions sometimes? Yes, but never to just test somebody’s patience. Either I’m trying to broaden or specify the context, or it’s a rhetorical question. The two questions I count in my last response are rhetorical. Their answers are obvious, respectively, if you know where Walmart gets many of its products, and if you don’t like trade protectionism in the global economy.

Do I try to align you with others? It’s more a problem of perception. It’s hard for me to sometimes distinguish most independent’s views from most conservatives. It doesn’t help that the independents tend to side against my party almost invariably.

To me, an independent is somebody who doesn’t take a party line. All too often, that distinction doesn’t seem to be there, and so if I don’t know what you consider to be your alignment, I simply match agendas.

My tone is professorial. That’s more the way I’m wired than anything else. Given the choice between being a boring lecturer and a compelling one, I’d rather be the latter, though. I take my style seriously, as my future career choices run along the lines of being a writer. Political, fiction, or screen, I try not to embarrass myself. I write as if somebody’s going to dig these things up later on.

As for answering questions posed to others, I tend not to limit myself to only questions or challenges addressed to me. I follow the lines of debate that interest me, or respond to the entries where I just want to sock it to somebody. I don’t presume my perspective to be theirs. When I guess at what they mean, I qualify it as a guess. When I defend somebody, I usually make it clear that the grounds I defend them on are particular to me. Otherwise, I prefer to just jump in as an individual, and not attach my perspective to theirs.

It’s rare that I get complaints, and most of the time the discussions are pretty free-wheeling anyways. It adds spice to the discussion, and keeps people on their toes, I think.

Stephen Daugherty,

Your recent post is appreciated in that I think I now have a better understanding of your intent and objectives. My references were not intended to be inflamatory towards you or any others. It is possible that some of our discussions may result in my taking an “adverserial” role but I will try to do so in a more tempered fashion. For example when I say “leave a big hole where the country used to be” it is a gross exaggeration of reality although, my feeling is along those lines.

Aldous,
“Republicans tie yellow ribbons on their SUV’s?”
My son in Saudi, My Son-in-law in Afganistan, my two nephews in Iraq, ALL REPUBLICANS would tend to make that statment silly.
bryan,
I want to thank you for serving your country. It’s people like you and the sacrfices you make that keep us all free.

wow, what a waste of my time it was reading this blog. thanks a lot people, i’ll never get the past 10 minutes back.

btw, without the un, the us would be called upon to do much more in the world. as a nation, we aren’t capable of fulfilling all of the un’s obligations, so let them do it and support them.

if u hate america and your fellow man so much that u aren’t willing to do that, then check out, but don’t drag us down into your hole with u ;)

IMO it is time to retire this topic. I cannot imagine any new information and/or opinions surfacing.

Those of you who are asking what positive things the UN has done, consider this:

Do you remember World War III? Do you remember how many people died in the initial First Strikes, and how many millions died in the ensuing fallout? Do you remember the horrors of that man-made armageddon? No? ME NEITHER!

For all of the noble talk of saving lives, preserving human rights, etc., the U.N. was all about one thing — preventing the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. from destroying themselves, each other, and everyone in between. And, in that, they did a pretty d*** good job.

Now that WW3 doesn’t seem to be looming on the horizon, maybe it’s time for the U.N. to be restructured. Maybe a serious shake-up is in order. I’ll agree with you on that. But to say that nothing good came from it is to ignore the fact that the human race still exists.

The United Nations has done absolutely nothing to combat global poverty or violence.

The lack of logic, truth, fairness, and reason in single sentence highlights why I tend to ignore eric’s rants^H^H^H^H^Hcontributions to WatchBlog.

Aye Carumba.

To all my fellow brothers and sisters on the right please feel free to join me at my new group, Ferrus Ferrum Honorum, a place for those on the right to vent without extrainous noise.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ferrusferrumhonorum/

David R. Remer:

“Try to imagine the world’s reaction, especially Islamic nations, to our invasion of Iraq had there been no UN and no World Security Council’s condemnation of Iraq’s previous actions as a backdrop to our invasion. It is mind-boggling to imagine and could have even resulted in a string of reactions leading to WWIII.”

While I do not often sing your praises, a truer statement has not been made. I am not a huge fan of the UN, however, endorsing its dissolution is tantamount to either total withdrawl from the rest of the world or a decision to dominate it unilaterally.

Rob Cotrell:

“Now that WW3 doesn’t seem to be looming on the horizon, maybe it’s time for the U.N. to be restructured. Maybe a serious shake-up is in order. I’ll agree with you on that. But to say that nothing good came from it is to ignore the fact that the human race still exists.”

Wow, I am agreeing again. I agree that a serious realignment/reorganization is in order. I think the UN should be beauracratically downsized to eliminate duplication and overhead, stricter guidelines for the negotiating process with an emphasis on “light-of-day” oversight, and, though I know it is controversial, I think the UN should consider moving to a more suitable site more in line with international flavor of its membership—meaning, since the security council is essentially from the Euro-Asian-African area, purhaps a more central location would be more fruitful…if we want to pursuade peace, we should have a more noteable presence.

Is Bolton the one to represent the US? Frankly, I like a tough management style—no nonsense truth and get-the-job-done attitude are good things. However, too many questions exist about his motives and objectives from not only a US standpoint, but globally, to think he has a realistic chance of motivating the UN to change in a constructive manner.

This from a conservative (non-Republican)

Why do we continue to blame EVERY american for slavery? it was the slaves families that sold them into slavery. and it was our ancestors that freed them from slavery! my grand parents have the discharge paper for my great great great grandfather from the civil war- he was severly wonded freeing slaves. so why am i to blame for slavery?

ericsimonson: you wrote:

I’m not sure how you can just explain away all the crimes committed by the UN, it’s mind boggling. I’m talking about rampant bribery, graft, cronyism of the worst kind.

eric, I do not want you to think I am ignoring all these things, because I certainly am not, but I do think we need to clean our own house (like someone else said) BEFORE we can point the finger at someone else.

David Remer:

Eric, it is bad, I know, some of what has happened under UN auspices. But, c’mon, worse than Enron? Worse than the Savings & Loan debacle which cost this nation more than 9/11 did?

David, although I know this is off the topic, I wanted to ask, How do they forget so quickly? I am referring to The S & L scandal. I heard no mention of it during either election campaign, but I heard plenty of slams toward John Kerry and his military service. Did you?

In case anyone is interested, here are some links to the stories, These were just the first ones posted. There are many, many, many more for your reading enjoyment.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a389b6a173e33.htm

http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/savings.htm

http://www.campaignwatch.org/more1.htm#neil

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/s&l/

sassyliberal

Rob Cottrell,

Your opinion that the UN was about one thing
preventing the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. from destroying themselves, each other, and everyone in between. And, in that, they did a pretty d*** good job. Has obviously no basis in fact.

Why not say that the Red Cross was responsible for preventing a WWlll, in fact that war not occuring could be coincidental to the existenece of any other agency you would like to select. Santa and his elves would be a good one.

The human race still existing had everything to do with the existence of a higher authority to whom we all answer, not the UN.

“Why not say that the Red Cross was responsible for preventing a WWlll, in fact that war not occuring could be coincidental to the existenece of any other agency you would like to select. Santa and his elves would be a good one.”

It’s entirely possible that WW3 never would have occurred anyway. And, it’s entirely possible that it might still occur. A “might have been” is really difficult to prove.

My point is that the U.N. was designed to deal with the Cold War era, when two egocentric superpowers were spraying their political testosterone across the world. The world has changed, and the U.N. will need to change, too, if it intends to survive.

Rob Cottrell:

“My point is that the U.N. was designed to deal with the Cold War era, when two egocentric superpowers were spraying their political testosterone across the world. The world has changed, and the U.N. will need to change, too, if it intends to survive.”

Once again, excellent post. Times change, needs change, methods change—even though the extreme right does not want it to. Conservative I am. A stone wall I am not.

Even Kofi, who I have little or no respect for, admits the need for change. It can’t and won’t happen with him in charge, but it will happen eventually.

From a conservative(non-republican)

Chi Chi, thank you for last comment directed to myself. I appreciate it, and am always pleased to find common ground with others here at WB in all three columns.

Rob Cottrell,

Your post today at 2:13 clarifying your point on the WW3 original statement makes it quite clear that the US and USSR were slinging testosterone back and forth as opposed to the near nuclear holocaust you inferred that the UN was responsible for preventing.

I am pronably the world’s most guilty at exaggeration so I know how easy it is.

Thanks for clarifying your point.

Aldous wrote: So far, the only thing Republicans do is tie yellow ribbons to their SUVs.

That’s not only harsh, it’s not true. There’s a lot more going on here than that. A large percentage of the people who *have* gone over to Afghanistan and Iraq are Republicans. Those of us who are not over there for whatever reason have been known to send care packages to the troops, send letters, do what we can to support the families they left here, contribute to organizations that are setting up schools over there and doing other work to aid the Afghan and Iraqi people, etc, etc.

Can you say the same of liberals?

My experience (and I’m no spring chicken) is that mostly liberals want the government to do it all, whereas mostly conservatives mostly would rather take care of the not directly military stuff themselves, reasoning that if we do it ourselves, we can be sure it gets done.

There are liberals who also do more to help people than to fund politics, just as there are conservatives who don’t do much if anything that’s helpful or constructive. But the relative practices of the majority are …. educational.

ET

Zeek wrote: I’m not saying the UN isn’t corrupt, but how hypocritical can you get? I suggest we fix this country before we go around telling others what to do.

First of all, we are already working on fixing this country. We Americans strongly tend to do fairly constant self-examination and strive to correct what we perceive as flaws. Hypocrisy would be if we as a people pretended that everything was okay here. We generally don’t do that much; our freedom of speech pretty much guarantees that there’s nearly always somebody howling about how rotten things are in some way. We have quite open public dialog as to whether some situation is morally or ethically right or wrong most of the time.

Although to hear some people talk, you might think that was a *bad* thing. Like that Massachusetts Supreme Court judge who said recently that complaining about judicial decisions (even when they are contrary to the clear intent of the law) is a rejection of the rule of law, or all those campus rules restricting speech on campus to what’s politically correct. Talk about hypocrisy …. But that’s another discussion.

Second, the world is doing its level best to impinge on us, to force us to allow “world opinion” (that is, the opinion of people who at home are hostile to our traditional rights and freedoms, not to mention our civic mores and ethos) to dictate to us in all sorts of ways that relate to endangering or outright violating our constitutionally guaranteed rights. We very certainly have a right to tell the world where to get off under such circumstances.

Telling other countries to stop it when it’s an “internal” matter and they are not bothering our country or our citizens personally is a little different, and not something I want to discuss in this post.

But insisting that any organization to which our government is paying substantial sums must at least try to live up to our standards of civic virtue is pretty minimal IMO. If we don’t so insist, we are knowingly paying for wrongdoing with our tax dollars. That makes it pretty personal. I myself don’t like the knowledge that my tax dollars support UN corruption. And my congress-critters and president have been notified of my feelings.

The UN could serve a useful purpose. But if it can’t be cleaned up, I personally would rather see the currently useful parts reorganized as independent entities, the USA out of the remaining debating society for anti-American elitists, and ship that debating society to Geneva, if Geneva will have them, or dismantle it. I am increasingly certain that having them in New York is a bad thing - for us.

I know that’s not the usual mealy-mouthed runaround, and that it’s a little more nuanced than the usual all-or-nothing attitudes. But that’s what I honestly think.

ET

I agree with Eric’s original comments. Withdraw Mr. Boltons nomination and let’s get out of the United Nations.

If the United Nations is as strong and well organized as some believe, they will do fine without the United States as a member country.

Whew! Another right-wing rant. It’s as though all I have to do to discredit an organization is show that members of it commit crimes. Gee, do you know how many rapes, murders, briberies, extortions, thefts, child victimizations, wife-beatings, business frauds, and home break-ins happen every year in this country? Take any large organization, and you can find bad people in it. Notice the (startlingly large) number of pedophiles among Catholic priests? When are you guys going to start railing about that? After all, the Catholic church in America is subsidized (as are all religious organizations) by our tax dollars. Look, it was obvious to everyone a long time ago that if you right-wing nuts ever got control, one thing you hated is the UN and it was toast. And you didn’t hate it because of the things you are citing now, you hated it because it was internationalist and that galled you. You are only ranting about these things now because you want to convince the larger populace to support our government dismantling or disabling the UN. You guys are so transparent, but you think nobody will notice. And you know that your real agenda will never fly, so you put on your badly sewn sheep’s clothing a baa around.

Feh!

David Remer wrote: I thought for a minute you were talking about American society where this stuff goes on all the time. Except for genocide, - we were never held accountable for the genocide of many, many dozens of American Indian tribes, nor for the lynchings and murders of blacks in the last century and before.

About historic wrongs: I take it you personally have never done anything wrong, and subsequently resolved not to do it again? And have you any ancestors that ever did anything (however consistent it was with their own cultural mores) that you yourself would think was seriously out of line? Talking about the youthful follies of our nation as if they were yesterday, when our nation has recognized them as wrong and repented and is trying to avoid doing it again, is not constructive. Yes, we should remember. But flogging ourselves about it, when repentance and a firm purpose of amendment have already taken place, well, that’s wrong.

About the wrongs done by private persons, for which the government does its level best to find and punish the perps: We as a society are not guilty of the sins of all our fellow citizens. Or for that matter of the sins of illegal aliens who come here and harm others. If it were otherwise, complaining about it would not remit your own share of the collective guilt you seem to wish to impose.

David: Then I notice you were talking about the UN, an organization in which we are a chief player. Ahhh… then it all made sense.

Correction: of which we are the main financial support. As to who runs the UN, it is worth noting that ours is one voice of hundreds, that for some reason America is frequently singled out in UN resolutions for opprobration, that America is often berated for human rights violations by the UN, whose human rights committee is almost entirely made up of persons from nations that recognize no human rights for their own people, etc. apparently ad infinitum.

ET

ET, you still have not made a convincing argument in defense of others above who stipulate that we should clean our own house as we demand others clean theirs. Else, why on earth should they listen to our pleas.

Torturing prisoners does not win us a lot of points with those we are accusing of human rights abuses. It was Bush’s decision to lift the prohibitions against torture, now look at the loss of credibility we incur when trying to tell others to not abuse humans.

It is a bed we made, now we have to sleep in it.

mental wimp said “And you didn’t hate it because of the things you are citing now, you hated it because it was internationalist and that galled you. You are only ranting about these things now because you want to convince the larger populace to support our government dismantling or disabling the UN.”
You need to polish your crystal ball. You don’t know why I oppose the UN any more than I know why you support it.

David R. Remer wrote:
I am all for making the UN better. But, I am also all for making the US better. Leaving the UN is not an option. The UN without the US will simply result in an international agency operating without the benefit of our input and idealism. That won’t serve us or the rest of the world.

I reply: IMO it kinda depends on whether it can be fixed or not.

David R. Remer continues:
The UN simply needs laws and enforcement with teeth. The hypocrisy is that the US does not want to be subjected to such laws with teeth. The US does not want a world court, does not want to answer to a higher authority either militarily or internationally in area of law.

I reply: Our government appears to understand that it would be dangerous to our nation and our people to deliver up any part of our sovereignty to an organization that publicly sneers at our concepts of rights and freedoms.

Most of the UN personnel are from nations the governments of which are not representative, that don’t observe anything like our own civic virtues, that don’t practice anything approaching our own rights and freedoms. And if we give up our sovereignty to the UN there is no way we can subsequently legally defend ourselves from their insistance that corruption and graft and their mockery of a human rights commission are all perfectly acceptable. Free countries with representative governments are a *minority* in the UN, and a pitifully small one. We cannot afford to give our liberty into the keeping of persons representating, for instance, Sudan or Libya or China.

I suspect that Bolton sees things not too differently than I do. And frankly, if the other nations of the world don’t like it, tough. We do not have to play their game by their rules. We have spent centuries figuring out our own rules, making a lot of stupid mistakes in the process. We really don’t need to be denied the ability to apply the lessons we have learned, just because an alliance of the small and venomous and unfree decides that we have to do things their way instead.

ET

sassyliberal wrote:
How do they forget so quickly? I am referring to The S & L scandal. I heard no mention of it during either election campaign, but I heard plenty of slams toward John Kerry and his military service.

IIRC (and I really think I do) John Kerry is the one who brought up the subject of his military service originally. It wasn’t until he started going around bragging about what a hero he had been, and how GWB was a slacker for going into the National Guard, that the tales of his allegedly traitorous contact with the N. Viet government, the denial of many of the men serving with his unit that he was really heroic, and the replaying of his testimony before Congress that he had committed war crimes started surfacing.

I don’t remember that either the Republicans or the Democrats brought up the subject of the S&L mess during the election. Nor have I forgotten about it. So why didn’t you libs resurrect it? Not that it worked all that well as an issue when it *was* used as an issue ….

ET

ET

Nice rewriting of history on John Kerry’s military service. You’ve got to get out of the conservative echo chamber once and while and see how it plays in the daylight. Kerry clearly and obviously served in Vietnam with distinction. He came back and worked within the system to end what he felt was a bloody mess (and it was, so don’t give me your “Animal Farm” revisionism). The “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” were launched by a well-heeled right-winger with Bush-administration ties as a way to, as Karl Rove puts it, attack his strength. And they didn’t care about “truth,” because they knew lies have legs for true believers and all you need is time for the rest. They quibbled about some insignificant details, and asserted that this proved (somehow) that Kerry was some sort of deserter and must have obtained his medals fraudulently. They only people who believed it were people like you, those mired in the echo chamber and blind to any contradictory evidence.

mental,
Are you living in a fantasy world? John Kerry spent 4 months in Vietnam and most of that time he was trying to get out. I don’t see that as distinguished service. He shot himself in the ass to get a purple heart…angin not distinguished service…He came home and accused me and others who served a year there of war crimes that he didn’t see and couldn’t have known about and gave moral support to our enemy. He is the one who brought up his Vietnam record but wouldn’t release his medical records to back up his claims about his medals. If he was so much against the war he shouldn’t have accepted his commission.

Mental Wimp wrote: Notice the (startlingly large) number of pedophiles among Catholic priests? When are you guys going to start railing about that?

Point of fact: The Catholic priesthood has, statistically, no higher percentage of pedophiles than the general populace. No fewer, either, alas. But because they are held to a higher standard, and because the RCC can be bled for large sums of money for failing to stop them, you hear more about them than you do about wierd uncles and predatory dads and such.

Mental Wimp wrote: After all, the Catholic church in America is subsidized (as are all religious organizations) by our tax dollars.

Point of fact: There’s a difference between the active support of tax dollars being given to a cause and the tax breaks available to all qualifying non-profit organizations, religious or not.

To get back to the subject at hand:

Mental Wimp wrote: Look, it was obvious to everyone a long time ago that if you right-wing nuts ever got control, one thing you hated is the UN and it was toast. And you didn’t hate it because of the things you are citing now, you hated it because it was internationalist and that galled you.

I could say that it is obvious to everybody that if you left wing nuts ever got firm enough control, you’d outlaw dissent and driving personal vehicles and eating meat … except that I have friends who are liberals, and I take the time to listen to them instead of to my own preconceptions.

Mental Wimp wrote: You are only ranting about these things now because you want to convince the larger populace to support our government dismantling or disabling the UN. You guys are so transparent, but you think nobody will notice.

You don’t seem to have noticed that our government is not showing any signs of wanting to dismantle or disable the UN. You may not want to believe this, but the anti-UN attitude in certain segments of the population is nothing new; it is as old as the UN itself.

And the reasons for not wanting to surrender any of our national sovereignty to the UN are as stated. Those of us who don’t want the UN *as it is* to become an overgovernment to which America would be accountable under law, feel that we are better served with our own representative government, which is accountable to us, and which we can modify as we feel the need. The UN *as it is* is a corrupt and nonrepresentative organization, the majority of the voters therein being from unfree nations.

Although it has its uses, placing the UN in a position to deny our government the ability to defend our cherished rights and freedoms is not something I personally want to see. And it seems obvious to me that I’m not the only one.

It’s not that the UN is international. So is the Red Cross. So are a lot of fine organizations supported by conservatives, including many churches.

It’s because I am quite certain that giving that sort of power to the sort of organization that the UN is (non-representative, corrupt, most of the member nations being unfree and for the most part contemptuous of freedom) would lead to a world-wide dictatorship and massive repression - to put it politely.

To put it less politely, I expect that the day will come when the UN - or its successor, if the UN itself goes down - does achieve the pinacle of power, and I believe that when it does (not if, mind you), it will lead to a dictatorship such as this world has never before seen, with horrors that make Stalin and Pol Pot and all their ilk look like small-timers.

The signs are fairly clear, for those with the eyes to see, a reasonable knowledge of historic patterns and the brains to process the information.

I’d rather not see that in my lifetime, thank you. I’d rather put it off as long as possible. And that’s the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about why I have such an anti-UN attitude.

ET

I consider the smearing of Kerry on his military record a blatant demonstration of double standards. You complain about incomplete medical records on Kerry’s part, but fail to notice that your own candidate’s records in that regard were incomplete, even though they would be called complete several times.

On the question of wounds and medals, I think the Swiftvet claims are more rhetoric than substance. As a writer reading their words in Unfit For Command, It struck me that they never missed an opportunity to use loaded language, and to assume the worse case when other possibilities were present. His motivations were perpetually painted as sinister, his manner as cowardly, and his character as unworthy of his command.

John O’Neill, one author was a long time rival of Kerry’s, who agreed to head up an astroturfed organization set up to oppose Kerry’s fairly robust organization. The other man, Jerome Corsi, was revealed to be a regular and quite strident contributor to the Free Republic site, whose postings make even the vitriolic material on that site look dilute. Their funding sources had very close ties to Republican fundraisers, despite their protestations of non-partisan status.

And all this to protect a President who never set foot in Vietnam or flew into Vietnamese airspace, Who failed to even complete the easy terms of his service as an Air National Guard. Where the accusations against Kerry were very much debunked, despite the public scandal, the vindication of Rathergate did little to change Bush’s proven neglect of the drills he missed.

I have no doubt somebody told you Kerry accused you of war crimes. Have you ever actually read what he said when he testified? It places his statement as the recounting of things that were told to him by other veterans, and things that he could confirm having been ordered to do himself. He doesn’t place the culpability with the average soldier, instead criticizing a leadership obsessed with body counts, and willing to order soldiers who were not informed of the laws of war to do illegal things.

For example: free-fire zones, where any person moving can be assumed to be an enemy and counted as such; the use of 50mm machine guns as antipersonnel weaponry; search and destroy missions. All these are illegal under international law, especially the Geneva conventions. Kerry does not spare himself here, but includes himself among those who he says have been made war criminals not by their own choices, but those of a government careless of such matters. This, he argued compounded a war they knew was a losing cause with politically convenient but morally repugnant shows of strength. Kerry’s call was one for integrity- admit the mistakes of the war, and stop perseverating on trying to win what was lost years before.

Essentially- Kerry went, despite his reservations, did his duty as a soldier, then did his duty as a citizen, regardless of the misunderstandtings that have been made and sometimes encouraged about what he really said.

This is more than Bush can say.

I wonder why Kerry’s honorable discharge was signed by Jimmy Carter( who by the way, pardoned most of the draft dodgers) if Carter wasn’t even President untill long after Kerry was out of the Military?

I guess we’ll never know untill Kerry signs the form to realease ALL his records.

Beagle,

I guess we’ll never know untill Kerry signs the form to realease ALL his records.

Which is more than we can ever expect Bush to do, sadly enough.

ET

I appreciate your lengthy, respectful response, and am embarassed that I was so strident in my post. The subject at hand was whether the UN is some sort of rabidly corrupt organization or just had “no higher percentage of pedophiles than the general populace. No fewer, either, alas.” (By the way, I haven’t seen any evidence for that oft-repeated canard.) You see, the comment was relevant. By charging that officials in the organization committed crimes, therefore the organization is corrupt (the nut of that part of the argument), you tar a whole lot of organizations you support with the same brush. So I wish you guys would drop it, except that it seems to be very effective in gulling the weak-minded, so I expect you won’t.

And I did not say that the problem conservatives have is that the UN is “international”, but that it is “internationalist,” a conservative bug-a-boo for the last 50 years. We want other nations to follow our rules but we’ll be damned if we will commit to follow them ourselves. And referring to our “cherished rights and freedoms” and some putative war over them only shows a jingoistic streak, but does not legitimize the hypocritical attitude that we will decide what is right without any enforceable input from anyone else. Right now we are the strongest nation in the world militarily, but I think it is a mistake to think that we can enforce rules on others, while we brook no correction ourselves simply because for the moment we can. Until other countries feel that they are treated fairly and as equals, we will have animosity toward our government and representatives of that government in many parts of the world. That we are so eager to expend billions on war, but so reluctant to spend but a tiny fraction of those dollars on feeding hungry children and treating their maladies, makes us seem less than our “cherished rights and freedoms” would suggest.

Regarding the “black helicopter” hypothesis that the UN or its successors will become ruthless world dictators, it all depends upon how the UN is structured, just like a federal, state, or local government. Of course, if a government can ruthlessly and illegally invade a sovereign nation on a cooked up pretext, and then suffer no consequences, we are essentially in the situation you fear: one group dominating the rest of the world. Oh, well, it doesn’t matter because Saddam was bad.

Steven Daugherty

Well said. The tactic of targeting minor issues to make the whole seem suspect is a common ploy of defense attorney’s when their client is guilty. It helps for a good prosecutor to refocus on the big picture and the implausiblity of the defense’s argument.

Beagle :
Wasn’t Jimmy Carter the Secretary of the Navy, during the Johnson Administation? That would explain why his signature is on Kerry’s discharge.
Wayne