Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Passchendaele | Main | The Vancouver Emergency »

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Book of the week

As of this week, I'll try to introduce a new book on politics, current affairs or general interests on a weekly basis. This week book is of US Ambassador John Bolton called "Surrender Is Not an Option" which is a neat testimony to the uselessness of the United Nations and US State Department, unfortunately. Loss of John Bolton was a big one for the US and those who care about freedom and security of the western civilization.

KRLA870.com radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt had a 2hr long interview with Ambassador Bolton: Listen to the interview Part One and Part Two

Posted by Winston on November 6, 2007 in Books | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54f7bb9468833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Book of the week:

Comments

I agree with you Winston, for Mr. Bolton is an intelligent level-headed man who is not afraid to speak the truth, something the Left most fears.

Bush and his party were wrong to cave in on this one, just like they were wrong to cave in on judicial appointments.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-11-06 5:38:58 PM


Alain, Bush and company didn't cave in on Bolton. Indeed a anti-Bush, anti-war RINO (Republican In Name Only) senator from Rhode Island named Lincoln Chaffy didn't vote for his confirmation. Read the book or listen to the interview to see what I mean. But I agree, Bolton is a big loss for the 2nd term Bush admin.

Posted by: winston | 2007-11-06 7:55:25 PM


Ah yes, Bolton, what a loss for diplomacy he was.

http://snowrunner.wordpress.com/2007/11/06/a-view-from-inside-the-un/

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-06 11:43:40 PM


Bolton was right. The UN has never been effective in any area. It will never reform because it is dominated by former marxist dictators and Muslim countries who laugh at democracy and human rights.

Like the UN, the UN Human Rights Commission is a joke. It monitors the human rights situation in Western democracies and denounces Israel for “fake” human rights abuses and ignores the massacres being carried out in Darfur and elsewhere in the world today. Currently, some of the members of the UN Human Rights Commission are the worst violators of human rights in the world. The “Inhuman” Rights Commission is just as useless as the UN itself.

We, Canada and the US and other like minded countries, should get out of the United Nations and form a new international organization strictly for those states that respect fundamental human rights, including the rights of women, freedom of religion and the press and democracy.

Posted by: andré | 2007-11-07 9:06:29 AM


We, Canada and the US and other like minded countries, should get out of the United Nations and form a new international organization strictly for those states that respect fundamental human rights, including the rights of women, freedom of religion and the press and democracy.

Posted by: andré | 7-Nov-07 9:06:29 AM

Already exists, it's called the G8.

As far as the human rights comission, from my link:

----------------

SZ: John Bolton, the American UN-Ambassador, is heavily disputed. Can you work together?

Pleuger: He is one of the most difficult colleagues I have ever worked with. He is very much coloured by his ideology, he argues not political but in categories of right and wrong, or good and bad. Those are moral descriptions, while politics is about alternatives and compromises.
SZ: Do you have an example?

Pleuger: The debate about the Human Rights Commission. Pretty much everybody had agreed on the formula, it wasn’t ideal, but better than no Human Rights Commission at all. Bolten voted against it, because he didn’t think the compromise was good enough. 170 States voted for it. With this move the US had given up the chance to be elected into the commission. Of all the countries the Americans made this move who always carried the torch for Human rights in front of them. For America this was a sad moment.

-----------------

Read the rest of the article, maybe it gives you an idea on what the UN is there for.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-07 9:14:22 AM


The UN is there to steal money from western countries and line the pockets of their bureaucrats like Coffeecan Anan did for years. The Oil For Food Scandal was five times the size of the theft of Enron - but Leftoids like Yellow Snow Blinded ignored the former and screamed about the latter.

The UN is there to protect dictatorships like China, Iran & Zimbabwe while railing at democracies like the US & Israel.

The UN should be abolished and replace with a new organization open to democracies alone. It is a Leftoid dream and a nightmare for lovers of freedom - one that ought to be dismantled ASAP.

John Bolton recognized that - and the Left hates him for it.

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-07 9:23:26 AM


The UN is there to steal money from western countries and line the pockets of their bureaucrats like Coffeecan Anan did for years. The Oil For Food Scandal was five times the size of the theft of Enron - but Leftoids like Yellow Snow Blinded ignored the former and screamed about the latter.

Posted by: obc | 7-Nov-07 9:23:26 AM

Yeah, the US was a victim there, not that they knew anything or even had some executives convicted....

-----------

Alleged US corporate complicity
It has also been alleged that the American government was aware of the scandal and chose to not prevent the smuggling because their allies Turkey and Jordan benefited from the majority of the smuggled oil.
US Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan) is quoted in an interview for the New York Times as saying, "There is no question that the bulk of the illicit oil revenues came from the open sale of Iraqi oil to Jordan and to Turkey, and that that was a way of going around the Oil-for-Food Programme [and that] we were fully aware of the bypass and looked the other way."

--------------------

The UN is there to protect dictatorships like China, Iran & Zimbabwe while railing at democracies like the US & Israel.

Posted by: obc | 7-Nov-07 9:23:26 AM

See the funny thing about democracies is that they are open to criticism by their own people, that's sort of part of the deal. Only in a dictatorship can a dictator shut up people who don't agree with his / her policies. We all know you are hungry for getting rid of this pesky democracy and just have a strong leader that tells you what to do, when to do it and when to shut up.

---------------------

The UN should be abolished and replace with a new organization open to democracies alone. It is a Leftoid dream and a nightmare for lovers of freedom - one that ought to be dismantled ASAP.

Posted by: obc | 7-Nov-07 9:23:26 AM

Again, it already exists, it's called the G8 or the North American Secruity Partnership, who met a few weeks ago, btw, in Alberta. None of which, btw, has really any democractic oversight, but that's just how you like it, wouldn't want to have the rabble say things that may interfere with your dream of a strongman that will bring peace to you.

------------

John Bolton recognized that - and the Left hates him for it.

Posted by: obc | 7-Nov-07 9:23:26 AM

John Bolton is a lot of things, a diplomat he's not. You cannot walk into a room, smash the other persons head into the table a few times then sit down and say: "Okay, so now that this is over, let's negotiate in both our best interest."

But again, you want someone on your side that smashes heads, kicks ass and takes names because you are afraid of everything you cannot understand in your mind. The longer I read your opinions the more I get the impression that there is quite a lot you don't understand.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-07 9:31:54 AM


"He thinks in categories of right and wrong,or good and bad."
It's about friggin' time somebody did.

Posted by: atric | 2007-11-07 9:56:11 AM


atric ~

We have now witnessed the fundamental flaw of Leftoidism – moral relativism.

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-07 9:59:35 AM


Alain - I agree with you Winston, for Mr. Bolton is an intelligent level-headed man who is not afraid to speak the truth, something the Left most fears.

Bolton certainly was outspoken about the UN and all the corruption, both economic and moral, that permeate the place. To bad he wasn't as up front about Taiwangate as he is about the UN.

Posted by: O’REILLY | 2007-11-07 10:03:23 AM


Bolton certainly was outspoken about the UN and all the corruption, both economic and moral, that permeate the place. To bad he wasn't as up front about Taiwangate as he is about the UN.

Posted by: O’REILLY | 7-Nov-07 10:03:23 AM

Now that's easy to explain: Don't shit where you eat.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-07 10:38:17 AM


atric ~

We have now witnessed the fundamental flaw of Leftoidism – moral relativism.

Posted by: obc | 7-Nov-07 9:59:35 AM

Even Einstein knew: Everything is relative.

At which point in history would you like to pin down the moral absolute by which everything should be judged?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-07 10:41:23 AM


Spot on OBC.
I am so sick and tired of hearing the Leftoids describe things as "acceptable" or unacceptable",
"OK" and 'not OK" etc. etc. especially to young kids. They grow up with absolutely no sense of right or wrong or good or bad.
And I beleieve Roadrunner has it all wrong.
Einstein meant to say "everybody has a relative".
In any event, I can't see what physics has to do with human behaviour, but what do I know, I'm just a knuckle-dragging Redneck.

Posted by: Atric | 2007-11-07 11:49:54 AM


And in a tribute to Ronald Reagan's great judgment in backing "Star Wars":

"Hawaii-launched missile test a success"

The Missile Defense Agency and Navy for the first time shot down two simulated ballistic missile targets yesterday off Kaua'i as the U.S. military heads toward a 2009 goal for operational use. The latest "hit to kill" intercept test marked the 10th and 11th successful intercepts, out of 13 targets, for the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense program, the sea-based component of the nation's still-developing missile defense program, officials said.

DON'T EVER LET those who claimed "It will never work," ever forget their "error. I am being generous when I say "error," because their predictions weren't based on scientific or technological obstacles, but were instead based on intellectual dishonesty, as their opposition to missile defense was greater than their obligation to be honest about the likelihood that such systems could be successfully developed.

REMEMBER - "While some are saying it can't be done, others are doing it"!

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-07 11:55:24 AM


Right you are obc and Atric. The useful idiots are so predictable and have never been able to deal with substance or facts. To them if it feels like it is true then it must be true. Also they, like the Nazis, believe that if you shout a lie loud and long enough it will become true. They possess all the symptoms of a mental disorder.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-11-07 11:59:33 AM


Alain ~

"They possess all the symptoms of a mental disorder."

There it is in a nutshell.

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-07 12:02:26 PM


Most of the UN Human Rights Commission's artificial outrage concern the human rights "violations" of Israel and Western democracies. This reflect the UN's position that the Western democracies are engaging in the deliberate and systematic impoverishment of the rest of the world. The UN has two purposes: Keepin in power inefficient and tyrannical regimes and perpetuating backwardness in the "third World".

Posted by: andré | 2007-11-07 12:04:10 PM


"The UN has two purposes: Keepin in power inefficient and tyrannical regimes and perpetuating backwardness in the "third World"."

. . . and blaming the successful western nations for every problem their obstinacy in these fields creates.

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-07 12:15:08 PM


As you guys like to deal in absoluts here is a little bit of a thought project for you.

If killing a human being is amoral, as we do try (and in some places kill) murderers, does that mean that killing someone in self defence is also murder, and if so should this person be tried as a murderer as well?

Considering how high you people are on personal gun ownership for "protection", I'd guess the answer is that self defence should be allowed, yet suddenly you don't deal in an absolute anymore when you make exceptions.

Please, tell me why this statement of mine would be wrong, I am curious to see you demonstrated your mental flexibility to twist simple facts to fit your worldview.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-07 1:23:56 PM


Snowrunner--that is not what he was talking about--the theory of relativity has nothing to do with moral relativity--now I know you are an ignoramous!

And your problem is not even just a confusion of concepts--or a confusion of fields of study--or schools of study--but entire disciplines--mixing an art with a science!

You sure you didn't go to grade school in Gaza?

Moral relativity is ethics whereas theory of relativity is physics. Could you BE more stupid? I think that would be a subject that a fifth grader would know--hands down!

And there is such thing as Universal ethics--that which does not depend on either objective--that which you do not possess--or subjective, reality.

Rediculous!


Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-07 1:40:23 PM


And one more thing--Snow--runner--whatever you call yourself--there is an absolute difference between self-defence and committing murder. A person has the right to defend themself against unlawful intruders--and if that means that somehow the other gets killed in the process--then there is an arguement of self-defence. The arguement of self-defence exists separately from the act itself--which must be inspected to be sure that it actually was indeed self-defence, and not murder.

I recommend you keep your toilet cleaning job--and quit the study of everything--because clearly it is well above your intellect--to understand.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-07 1:46:41 PM


Snowrunner--that is not what he was talking about--the theory of relativity has nothing to do with moral relativity--now I know you are an ignoramous!

Posted by: Lady | 7-Nov-07 1:40:23 PM

Statements where made that it is good that John Bolton speaks in the terms of "Good" and "Evil" that he talks in absoluts.

And that you didn't get the Einstein reference (and in which context it was used and how it even applies to moral shows how little you really understand).

-----------------

And your problem is not even just a confusion of concepts--or a confusion of fields of study--or schools of study--but entire disciplines--mixing an art with a science!

Posted by: Lady | 7-Nov-07 1:40:23 PM

Moral is art? Wow. Now there's a good explaination as to why you (and obc et. al) manage to repeatedly apply a different standard to the same actions. You just "re-interpret" this "work of art".

---------------

You sure you didn't go to grade school in Gaza?

Posted by: Lady | 7-Nov-07 1:40:23 PM

I am pretty sure I didn't go to any Grade School.

------------------

Moral relativity is ethics whereas theory of relativity is physics. Could you BE more stupid? I think that would be a subject that a fifth grader would know--hands down!

Posted by: Lady | 7-Nov-07 1:40:23 PM

Now now, don't try to reach too high with your mental acrobatics, don't want you to get hurt.

----------------

And there is such thing as Universal ethics--that which does not depend on either objective--that which you do not possess--or subjective, reality.

Posted by: Lady | 7-Nov-07 1:40:23 PM

So, you agree that killing a human being is bad / evil / depicable? There is absolut no doubt in your mind that killing a human is morally and ethically wrong? See ya at the next anti-war demonstrastion shouting this from the top of your lungs.

----------------

Rediculous!

Posted by: Lady | 7-Nov-07 1:40:23 PM

Ridiculous? Is that what you meant? Where did you go to grade school? Saudi Arabia?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-07 1:54:52 PM


And one more thing--Snow--runner--whatever you call yourself--there is an absolute difference between self-defence and committing murder.

Posted by: Lady | 7-Nov-07 1:46:41 PM

The only reason there is a difference is because *gasp* the law (and thus ethics and morals) recognize the fact that there can be circumstances where killing another human being is justified.

The "problem" in this "discussion" is that you (and obc et. al.) like to coo on about how there are absoluts in moral only to then peddle back when it is in your own interest and claim that not everything is the same.

What is it Lady? Are there absoluts or not? Chose a side.

-----------------

A person has the right to defend themself against unlawful intruders--and if that means that somehow the other gets killed in the process--then there is an arguement of self-defence.

Posted by: Lady | 7-Nov-07 1:46:41 PM

Gee, you are telling me that there is a moral justification to KILL someone? But that can't be right, obc and you are arguing that there are moral absoluts. Shouldn't the killing of a human being (outside of whatever the motiation was) be considered bad? I mean seriously. Why even ask about someones motivation. Are you a apologist for murder Lady?

----------------

The arguement of self-defence exists separately from the act itself--which must be inspected to be sure that it actually was indeed self-defence, and not murder.

Posted by: Lady | 7-Nov-07 1:46:41 PM

Yeah, but the other guy is still dead. To inquire about the motivation of the perpetrator is only an attempt of you murderer loving people to justify the act of killing. Killing a human being is wrong, that a moral absolut, so the case should be closed.
-----------------

I recommend you keep your toilet cleaning job--and quit the study of everything--because clearly it is well above your intellect--to understand.

Posted by: Lady | 7-Nov-07 1:46:41 PM

Oh Lady, it seems you are the confused one. You want to talk about moral absoluts but only as long as it is in your benfit. The moment the argument turns against you it all becomes relativ again. Poor you. I am sure obc is going to give you a hug and make that big brain boo-boo go away.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-07 1:59:51 PM


These uneducated Leftoids can not understand that there is a difference between killing & murdering.

GO BACK TO SCHOOL - YOU UNEDUCATED FREAKS!

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-07 2:06:41 PM


These uneducated Leftoids can not understand that there is a difference between killing & murdering.

GO BACK TO SCHOOL - YOU UNEDUCATED FREAKS!

Posted by: obc | 7-Nov-07 2:06:41 PM

Careful, shouting in an echo chamber can lead to permanent hearing loss (it could also rattle the brain if there would be anything left to rattle, but I think that's one thing you don't have to worry about).

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-07 2:09:42 PM


obc no need to waste your time with the handicapped. When one has no moral compass one can only deal in shades of grey. Diplomacy for them equates to shades of grey, no right or wrong, no evil or good.


Posted by: Alain | 2007-11-07 2:13:13 PM


obc no need to waste your time with the handicapped. When one has no moral compass one can only deal in shades of grey. Diplomacy for them equates to shades of grey, no right or wrong, no evil or good.

Posted by: Alain | 7-Nov-07 2:13:13 PM

And yet, you have no problem in differentiating between a "good dead person" and a "bad dead person". Talk about relativism. Where are your absoluts Alain? Or do they only apply to things you don't agree with?

Doesn't matter why someone is getting killed, they are still dead in the end.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-07 2:16:50 PM


Snowrunner,

It's quite funny that you chose to point out, with an insult no less, one spelling error by Lady when you've consistently screwed up 'absoluts'.

Unless you're writing about a brand of vodka, (in which case your posts would make absolutely (pun intended) no sense) you should put in an 'e' - absolutEs.

Posted by: Kathryn | 2007-11-07 2:17:01 PM


Snowrunner,

It's quite funny that you chose to point out, with an insult no less, one spelling error by Lady when you've consistently screwed up 'absoluts'.

Unless you're writing about a brand of vodka, (in which case your posts would make absolutely (pun intended) no sense) you should put in an 'e' - absolutEs.

Posted by: Kathryn | 7-Nov-07 2:17:01 PM

English isn't my primary language, how's your German?

Wir koennen gerne in Deutsch weiterschreiben und dann kann ich mich auch entsprechend gut ausdruecken. Falls Sie nicht dazu in der Lage sind dann mein Beileid.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-07 2:19:19 PM


So why are you here instead of in Germany? You would fit in much better there and be able to enjoy a much bigger crowd of Islamist, as long as you do not lose your head.


Posted by: Alain | 2007-11-07 2:25:08 PM


"So why are you here instead of in Germany"

Alain, You're from France is my memory isnt so bad, right ?

Posted by: Marc | 2007-11-07 2:28:54 PM


Educated there and father from there but sorry old bean I was born, poor me, in Quebec. Of course that did not stop the hospitable Quebecers from referring to me as "maudit Français".

Your point is what exactly? Try dropping the drugs, get a job and a life and enter the real world Marc.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-11-07 2:42:45 PM


Snowrunner:
I must admit that on occasion you have made a good argument for the opposing side in many of these debates and, although I have never agreed with you, you do sometimes provide some fodder for quiet reflection.
However, in this particular case, you are well beyond your capabilities.
Why don't you give up this one time and save your energies ( however wasteful it may be ) to debate
an issue that you may be able to discuss with some
rationality?

Posted by: Atric | 2007-11-07 2:42:55 PM


"politics is about alternatives and compromises.
SZ: Do you have an example?

Pleuger: The debate about the Human Rights Commission. Pretty much everybody had agreed on the formula, it wasn’t ideal, but better than no Human Rights Commission at all. Bolten voted against it, because he didn’t think the compromise was good enough. 170 States voted for it. With this move the US had given up the chance to be elected into the commission. Of all the countries the Americans made this move who always carried the torch for Human rights in front of them. For America this was a sad moment."


In fact, NO human rights commission would be better than one that makes a travesty of human rights with some of the most egregious oppressors of the world sitting in judgment of their democratic betters.


Career "diplomats" have lost the ability to understand (if they ever had it) that compromising on how big the helping of manure is going to be doesn't make it anything other than the brown stuff.

Posted by: tarkus | 2007-11-07 4:17:50 PM


"maudit Francais"
aaawwww poor baby.
I'm sure you prefer f_Frenchman in the US or f_frog in here...

My point was that there's no points in telling Snowrunner to go back in Germany only because he's not a Neo-con like you. In fact, he's more Canadian than yourself since the extreme right wing is almost innexistant in Canada. You have a dual citizenship I believe ? 'cause Sarkozy sounds perfect for your political agenda.

Yes, I smoke weed once inna while.
I'm honnest enough to say it in front of everybody knowing fully well it would play "against" me.
I would be curious to search in the closet of each and everyone of you...

That dosent hold me from having a great position, having well balanced opinions and a great life.
I had a very good education and,unlike yourself, I never use that to feel superior or bashing anybody. You know why ? Because I'm not an ass.

Anyway, I put my confidence in people of good will and who beleive in themselves and their abilities.

That, surely dosent rimes with "superior education" all the time you friggin french preppy.

Dion had a superior education and he's half french; just like you. Look how your friends out here are "hospitable" with the guy precisly because of those details...

You never answer my comments with facts but prefer to tarnish me as "uneducated".
That's certainly not a way of commenting if you're someone with a "superior education".
At least, not when you received your "superior education" outside of France.

Posted by: Marc | 2007-11-07 5:07:27 PM


is morality relative? are there moral absolutes? i believe there are moral absolutes. i believe in God, so my compass points to Him as my reference.
God is my "magnetic north".

but there are so many different religious viewpoints on moral absolutism, it's impossible to argue a case for one against the other. it's too subjective; too personal. when dealing with this issue, one should probably argue from an objective point of view.

objectively, i believe there are definite premises for moral absolutes. i start with a solid foundation built upon the liberty of the individual protected from other individuals and groups (entities).

and, as usual on this blog, i harp on "the big three" liberties: private property rights, free speech, and gun rights. people cry for "human rights", but without the establishment and protection of these fundamental liberties, "human rights" have no chance to become established.

liberty comes first; this then, allows for human rights and altruism. no nation is perfect, but the ones which most recognize liberty are the ones which most recognize human rights.

so, individual liberty is my objective moral premise. i want this protected and maintained at all costs (even at the expense of my life). moral absolutes stem from "the big three".

what must i do within my borders to protect my liberty?

i must vote for a government that recognizes "the big three" (as hands off as possible). i must be very careful who i allow within my borders (immigration policy). i must maintain a large healthy army to protect the nation, and a small efficient police force to keep the peace. i must not accept State recognized, discriminatory special rights for individuals and groups (affirmative action, "hate crimes", etc.). with greater liberty comes greater individual responsibility and accountability, so i must push for long, tough sentences for criminals who abuse liberty, because i don't want a large, potentially oppressive police force. i must rail against corporate welfare (business subsidies, farm subsidies, government grants, etc.), and personal welfare (excepting the mentally and physically handicapped).

what must my nation do outside my borders to protect my liberty?

nations must be treated as individuals; and because individuals are either hostile, indifferent, or friendly (but always complicated!!), nations must be dealt with in a way which protects my and my nation's liberty. it must cultivate friendships and ensure immediate or potential threats are dealt with, diplomatically or militarily. and, to connect this post to the topic, ;) my nation must maintain IT'S liberty against international organizations like the UN, who might erode national sovereignty with bogus and ridiculous environmental and "human rights" policies. my nation must reserve the right not to be bound by international policies and agreements.

these are some examples.

there are objective moral absolutes. they begin with my and your (if you value it) liberty.

Posted by: shel | 2007-11-07 5:48:01 PM


The idea of ONU was good. The idea of the first organization in Switzerland was also good.

The problem is with the members.

At least, there should be a strict mechanism to reject nations who don't respect human rights.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-11-07 5:50:29 PM


The United States refused to sit on the UN Human Rights Council at its inception because it feared that it would degenerate into a talking shop that would aid and abet the worst human rights violators in the world. The US government was right.

By the month of March 2007, the Council had condemned Israel 8 times, but refused to pass judgment on even a single other regime.

In 2007, the UN Human Rights Council also turned a blind eye to abuses in two of the world’s most repressive countries when it decided to end its scrutiny of Iran and Uzbekistan. This decision was taken despite the facts that the number of known executions in Iran grew by more than 80% last year to 177 and Iran leads the world in the execution of juveniles. And Uzbekistan, where people are routinely tortured to compel confession, is not much better than Iran. In a few years, Iran and Uzbekistan will probably sit on the UN Human Rights Council. These are just a few reasons why the UN HR Council is a rotten institution that cannot be taken seriously. Bolton was right. If you are living under a oppressive regime, don't expect any help from the UN Human Rights Council.

Posted by: andré | 2007-11-07 6:02:31 PM


Anyone remember that news clip a few years back when an Iraqi man (under Saddam) jumped into a UN vehicle pleading for protection - and was thrown out by the UN idiots as they watched Saddam's men carry him away (likely to be killed) ?

Or how about those UN sanctuary cities in the former Yugoslavia where UN soldiers walked away and allowed thousands of men and male teenagers to be slaughtered.

And what did the UN do about Rwanda, as over 800,000 were macheted to death?

Hail the wonderful and caring UN! THEY should be on trial for abetting genocide!

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-07 7:08:19 PM


And what did the UN do about Rwanda, as over 800,000 were macheted to death?

Hail the wonderful and caring UN! THEY should be on trial for abetting genocide!

Posted by: obc | 7-Nov-07 7:08:19 PM

Right obc, selective memory again. You DO know that the US refused to label it a genocide, despite Romeo Dallaire trying to get them to do so. And you know why? Because they didn't want to sent troops, the debacle of "Black Hawk Down" had made the US so scared of sending troops into Africa that they did a dance around the issue and blocked any move in the security council to declare a Genocide was happening.

Your "stalwart defender" of human rights, out of pure political calculation, refused to come in. Oh, and what about the Belgians who decided to leave after they got under attack? Same shit.

It's not a fault of the UN if key member states, who have veto power, over and over use it for their own political targets. There are a few things that are wrong with the UN right now, one of the worst is that a handful of nations can literally hold any process within the security council if it isn't in their political interest. And no obc, it's not these "third world countries" that do this, right at the front of the pack of that selective club is your beloved US.

I suggest you go and read "Shake hands with the Devil" by Romeo Dallaire to understand what happened in Rwanda and WHY instead of just using it to smear an entire group of people (including Dallaire who still believes in the idea of the UN) who have put themselves in harms way. Where's YOUR "support the troops" in that moment?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-07 7:30:14 PM


"US refused to label it a genocide"

Not the US - Leftoid idol BILL CLINTON & SECRETARY OF STATE HALFBRIGHT.

And I'm not sure I care to be lectured about human rights by a German.

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-07 7:34:47 PM


"US refused to label it a genocide"

Not the US - Leftoid idol BILL CLINTON & SECRETARY OF STATE HALFBRIGHT.

And I'm not sure I care to be lectured about human rights by a German.

Posted by: obc | 7-Nov-07 7:34:47 PM

Oh smack. I grew up in Germany, born a full 29 1/2 years after the hostilities ended, have been on both sides of the iron curtain so I am automatically guilty by association with a regime that came and went long before my time.

Hey OBC, where did your ancestors hail from? I am sure we can find a connection that puts you in a bad light too, even if it is a few dozen generations back, after all you seem to think that regardless of when one was born one is responsible for all the things that happened before.

And Dude, Clinton was President, as such he spoke / acted on behalf of the United States, doesn't matter if you like the guy or not. It WAS the US who made that call, live with it.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-07 7:41:46 PM


See Snowrunner,
you would have used the same kind of words toward Israel and the entire planet Earth would have shaked. "Fair play" is not permited in the Neo-Cons lexical. They sit higher than you besides God. Don't expect better than that from those extremists. By the way, these people have nothing in common with Canadian Conservators. They are some kind of iluminated people. Smaller than the Jehovas. You have a doubt on that ? Try to renew your WS suscribtion.

Posted by: Marc | 2007-11-07 7:59:27 PM


No - it was a socialist human rights messiah who happened to be in a position to speak for the US - just like the great Jimmy Carter of the same mold who opened up Iran to Islamofascists because he didn't like the Shah's human rights position.

Look what we ended up with instead!

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-07 8:02:21 PM


One-trick pony bloviates once again, eh?

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-07 8:08:40 PM


Must be something like that...

Posted by: Marc | 2007-11-07 8:14:00 PM


Here's a story from the UK I couldn't resist - because of the follow-up comment:

"New law could make gay jokes illegal"

The right to crack jokes or be rude about homosexuals could fall victim to new government laws to stamp out ''homophobic'' behaviour, Rowan Atkinson, the Blackadder star warned yesterday. Atkinson, who mounted a successful campaign in 2004 to water down legislation aimed at criminalising expressions of religious hatred, has returned to the fray to defend the art of gay leg-pulling.

SO NOW THEY WANT to control what comes out of our months IN ADDITION to what goes into them? SHEESH!

This is how jokes will begin in the near future:

"Stop me if you've been arrested for this one before!"

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-08 6:35:33 AM


"Two fags walk into a bar... No wait! I was talking about cigarettes! ... Don't tase me, bro!!"

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-08 6:37:30 AM


Who is to be blamed for the Rwanda genocide? The USA? France? Belgium? The "international community"? As far as anyone can tell, no Americans, French, or Belgians were involved in the killings. This did not prevent the Organization of African Unity (OAU) from publishing a 318-page report that placed the blame on everyone except the Hutu extremists who did the actual killings. Of course, the OAU is also demanding that the UN set up a group to determine how these so called responsible parties should begin paying reparations. It also demanded that Rwanda’s international debt be cancelled as a form of reparations. Naturally, the UN is quite willing to contribute to this charade which perpetuate the tradition of blaming the Western democracies for all the evil that happens in the world.

The time has come to stop blaming everyone but the perpetrators of the Rwanda genocide: Rwandans themselves!

Posted by: andré | 2007-11-08 6:58:44 AM


Posted by: andré | 8-Nov-07 6:58:44 AM

At the root cause for what happened in Rwanda are the Belgians who forced to tribes to "form a nation", not only that, but they chose the smaller clan that was oppressed by the bigger one to "run the country". This was a calculation, because they simply played to the desire of the minority to be in charge.

So yes, the root cause is Belgian Imperialism.

But that's not even what this is about. It is about a Western World that claims to stand for human rights etc. and then, when called upon, suddenly looks the other way. That IS something the West (and in this case the US instrumentally by blocking a declariation of Genocide) has to take the blame for.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-08 1:51:06 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.