You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
International-UN-NGOs
United Nations no hero
2004-10-18
When you read the words "United Nations," what comes into your mind? Perhaps it's an august phrase, such as "international community," or a lofty image, such as the blue U.N. seal. In the first presidential debate, President Bush spoke of "going to the United Nations" as if it were a tiresome relative. ("I didn't need anybody to tell me to go to the United Nations. I decided to go there myself.") Sen. John Kerry often talks about the United Nations as if it were a forgotten American ally.

Yet the United Nations is not a person, or an ally, or a concept. Unlike, say, Britain or Sri Lanka, it isn't even a country with a government to which people are elected. Nor is it a company whose employees are accountable to shareholders. Instead, it is a collection of political appointees whose activities are, by ordinary government or business standards, subjected to shockingly little oversight.
Posted by:Mark Espinola

#9  Gee, the UN isn't a lofty community of idealistic nations working for peace in a spirit of groovy love vibration after all! Whoda thunk it?
Posted by: Mike   2004-10-18 12:35:59 PM  

#8  Frank G, Me too. So, stop feeding them. You too, .com.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2004-10-18 11:39:37 AM  

#7  naahhhh I'm tired of Mikey, Aris, et al
Posted by: Frank G   2004-10-18 11:32:29 AM  

#6  Ship, I won't be back for this one bro', as soon as the real Mike S and other players get involved this will be a 50+ post thread in 3 hrs.
Posted by: Jarhead   2004-10-18 11:30:16 AM  

#5  I'll be back at 12 to see the links, the evidence, the corpus delicatable, the photostat, the real deal, the mccoy
Posted by: Shipman   2004-10-18 11:04:54 AM  

#4  9.9. The blog goes wild!
Posted by: Shipman   2004-10-18 11:03:14 AM  

#3   This negligence does not, I should add, mean that the United Nations should be kicked out of New York or that the United States should stop paying U.N. dues.

Can anyone supply even a shred of evidence that this asumption is true? Supply links. Neatness counts.
Posted by: Mikey Silvester   2004-10-18 9:32:38 AM  

#2  No hero, no question about that. Now a proven crook. A superstition like it was with the Golden Calf worship circa 2500 years ago.
Posted by: wits0   2004-10-18 9:25:07 AM  

#1  She's correct, but vastly understates the case.

The UN wasn't even designed to be the sort of supra-national state that is implied by most of the poorly reasoned gibberish coming from the likes of Kerry. Its principle is collective security -- security provided by collaboration of member states, using the UN as a coordinating mechanism and means of marshalling political support. She incorrectly places Bush's and Kerry's references to the UN on the same plane, implying they're both incorrect. Uh uh.

There's also a line that only reads humorously now, about "historical allies" -- unless it refers to the UK, Australia, etc., of course.

Overall, though, while she mentions that it's "odd" that the stupendous scandal represented by UNSCAM has received so little attention, it's clearly much more than that. Outrageous, unbelievable, scandalous in itself. But I suppose Ms. Applebaum can't be expected to state the obvious about out-of-control media distortion.
Posted by: Verlaine   2004-10-18 1:05:49 AM  

00:00