Masturbating at Turtle Bay
The biggest problem with the "sweeping reforms" announced by for the UN by Divided Earth President-for-Life Kofi Annan is that even if they weren't laughably idiotic, it would be the Annanites who would be implementing them.
Annan's answer to the "bitter divisions" caused by George W. Bush's decisiveness in giving meaning (read teeth) to UN bloviations is to try, once more, to cut America's balls off.
Get a load of this load.
Annan: "What is needed is a comprehensive system of collective security, one that tackles both old and new threats, and addresses the security concerns of all states - rich and poor, weak and strong."
That one sentence encapsulates everything that's wrong with the UN. There's no such thing as "collective security," and never has been. Even the UN's crowning achievement in this supposed regard - the Korean conflict - was an American show in everything but name. Every such action since then hasn't even bothered with the pretense of the UN fig leaf beyond the formality of a Security Council resolution. And if the Russians hadn't been boycotting the SC when the vote was held regarding the Korean action, even that security wouldn't have been "collective."
There can only be "collective security" when "all states" agree on its working definition. About this there is obviously irresolvable disagreement, and Annan equally obviously expects us to conform to his version of it. Could he possibly have missed the election result?
Annan: 'The proposals, which must be approved by member nations, set out a broad framework for collective security and indeed gives a broader meaning to that concept appropriate for the new millennium."
Presto: when the Bush Administration doesn't knuckle under to this "broader meaning" of "collective security," America will be blamed for "causing international discord." IOW, another platform for "world" Bush/America-bashing.
Annan's "reform" panel wasn't any less stubbornly dimwitted.
"There is little evident international acceptance of the idea of security being best preserved by a balance of power or by any single - even benignly motivated - superpower."
There is also little evident "international" acceptance of reality. A balance of power has always been the most effective means of keeping the peace, specifically when that balance has tipped in the direction of "benignly motivated" powers or superpowers.
This has been true long before America arrived on the world stage - the "Concert of Europe" prevented a general war on the Continent for a full century after the Napoleonic conflict, and only began to unravel when "malignantly motivated" powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary) began banging the drums of war. Similarly, the rise of German Nazism and Japanese imperialism, unchecked by the "collective security" of the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations, made a second global war inevitable.
By contrast, the presence and steadfastness of a "benignly motivated superpower" - the United States - prevented a third at the hands of the old Soviet Union.
"The yearning for an international system governed by the rule of law has grown. No state, no matter how powerful, can by its own efforts alone make itself invulnerable to today's threats."
Wrong. That is precisely what we are doing, and not just for ourselves, because nobody else can. The "international community" has allowed hubris to breed from its debilitating weakness. Annanites have convinced themselves that their inability to combat evil lends them an inherent moral superiority, just as their unwillingness to combat evil misdirects it against the mighty benefactor they feel so free to endlessly malign.
They sit in their playpen, watching the adults do the real work of "collective security," and think that their diplodiddling is what really matters.
Well, that and the billions in bribes and kickbacks from the sort of dictators that are the backbone of the General Assembly - and, if Annan has his way, the Security Council as well.
As the New York Times reports it...
"One alternative would add 6 new permanent members - the likely candidates are Brazil, Germany, India, Japan, Egypt and either Nigeria or South Africa - as well as 3 new two-year term members. The other would create a new tier of 8 semipermanent members chosen for renewable four-year terms and one additional two-year term seat to the existing 10.
"The right to cast vetoes, a power coveted by the nations seeking permanent status and one they are likely to press for, would continue to be limited to the 5 original permanent members."
Unless, as per the UN charter, two-thirds or more of the General Assembly vote to award the SC veto to some or all of these additional permanent members. This could still be vetoed by any of the current "Big Five," but it's difficult to see any other than ourselves and possibly the Brits doing so, seeing as how we are the obvious target. And once more, Uncle Sam will be cast as the "enemy of UN reform."
Here is what suffices for the money shot of this latest exercise in fecklessness.
"While the Security Council may need to be more proactive in addressing the 'nightmare scenarios' combining terrorists, weapons of mass destruction and 'irresponsible' nations, any preventive action taken without an imminent threat should still require the council's approval."
There it is. Forget the lessons of 9/11. Forget the Oily Food scandal. Forget the "international community"'s active role in preserving, protecting, and defending Saddam Hussein. Forget the instant replay going on next door in Iran. You Yanks are not entitled to defend yourselves (or the Jews) unless we allow it. Now get down on your knees and kiss King Kofi's ass, and don't forget the tongue.
Rumor has it that Congress is contemplating cutting back on our masochistic subsidizing of this bureaucratic bordello. That's the bare-minimum least we should be doing. It may sound cliche, but "getting the UN out of the US," if not the US out of the UN, really is something that should be put on the table. If that den of crooks and kleptocrats is going to sound like it's lip-synching Brussels, there's no reason why it can't be headquartered there.
It reminds me of a George Carlin political punchline. After making a big to-do about the fact that he doesn't vote, he points out that another election is coming up and actually urges his audience to get out and vote:
"I'll be staying at home and doing essentially the same thing. The difference between you and me is, when I'm finished masturbating, I'll have a little something to show for it."
Annan's answer to the "bitter divisions" caused by George W. Bush's decisiveness in giving meaning (read teeth) to UN bloviations is to try, once more, to cut America's balls off.
Get a load of this load.
Annan: "What is needed is a comprehensive system of collective security, one that tackles both old and new threats, and addresses the security concerns of all states - rich and poor, weak and strong."
That one sentence encapsulates everything that's wrong with the UN. There's no such thing as "collective security," and never has been. Even the UN's crowning achievement in this supposed regard - the Korean conflict - was an American show in everything but name. Every such action since then hasn't even bothered with the pretense of the UN fig leaf beyond the formality of a Security Council resolution. And if the Russians hadn't been boycotting the SC when the vote was held regarding the Korean action, even that security wouldn't have been "collective."
There can only be "collective security" when "all states" agree on its working definition. About this there is obviously irresolvable disagreement, and Annan equally obviously expects us to conform to his version of it. Could he possibly have missed the election result?
Annan: 'The proposals, which must be approved by member nations, set out a broad framework for collective security and indeed gives a broader meaning to that concept appropriate for the new millennium."
Presto: when the Bush Administration doesn't knuckle under to this "broader meaning" of "collective security," America will be blamed for "causing international discord." IOW, another platform for "world" Bush/America-bashing.
Annan's "reform" panel wasn't any less stubbornly dimwitted.
"There is little evident international acceptance of the idea of security being best preserved by a balance of power or by any single - even benignly motivated - superpower."
There is also little evident "international" acceptance of reality. A balance of power has always been the most effective means of keeping the peace, specifically when that balance has tipped in the direction of "benignly motivated" powers or superpowers.
This has been true long before America arrived on the world stage - the "Concert of Europe" prevented a general war on the Continent for a full century after the Napoleonic conflict, and only began to unravel when "malignantly motivated" powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary) began banging the drums of war. Similarly, the rise of German Nazism and Japanese imperialism, unchecked by the "collective security" of the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations, made a second global war inevitable.
By contrast, the presence and steadfastness of a "benignly motivated superpower" - the United States - prevented a third at the hands of the old Soviet Union.
"The yearning for an international system governed by the rule of law has grown. No state, no matter how powerful, can by its own efforts alone make itself invulnerable to today's threats."
Wrong. That is precisely what we are doing, and not just for ourselves, because nobody else can. The "international community" has allowed hubris to breed from its debilitating weakness. Annanites have convinced themselves that their inability to combat evil lends them an inherent moral superiority, just as their unwillingness to combat evil misdirects it against the mighty benefactor they feel so free to endlessly malign.
They sit in their playpen, watching the adults do the real work of "collective security," and think that their diplodiddling is what really matters.
Well, that and the billions in bribes and kickbacks from the sort of dictators that are the backbone of the General Assembly - and, if Annan has his way, the Security Council as well.
As the New York Times reports it...
"One alternative would add 6 new permanent members - the likely candidates are Brazil, Germany, India, Japan, Egypt and either Nigeria or South Africa - as well as 3 new two-year term members. The other would create a new tier of 8 semipermanent members chosen for renewable four-year terms and one additional two-year term seat to the existing 10.
"The right to cast vetoes, a power coveted by the nations seeking permanent status and one they are likely to press for, would continue to be limited to the 5 original permanent members."
Unless, as per the UN charter, two-thirds or more of the General Assembly vote to award the SC veto to some or all of these additional permanent members. This could still be vetoed by any of the current "Big Five," but it's difficult to see any other than ourselves and possibly the Brits doing so, seeing as how we are the obvious target. And once more, Uncle Sam will be cast as the "enemy of UN reform."
Here is what suffices for the money shot of this latest exercise in fecklessness.
"While the Security Council may need to be more proactive in addressing the 'nightmare scenarios' combining terrorists, weapons of mass destruction and 'irresponsible' nations, any preventive action taken without an imminent threat should still require the council's approval."
There it is. Forget the lessons of 9/11. Forget the Oily Food scandal. Forget the "international community"'s active role in preserving, protecting, and defending Saddam Hussein. Forget the instant replay going on next door in Iran. You Yanks are not entitled to defend yourselves (or the Jews) unless we allow it. Now get down on your knees and kiss King Kofi's ass, and don't forget the tongue.
Rumor has it that Congress is contemplating cutting back on our masochistic subsidizing of this bureaucratic bordello. That's the bare-minimum least we should be doing. It may sound cliche, but "getting the UN out of the US," if not the US out of the UN, really is something that should be put on the table. If that den of crooks and kleptocrats is going to sound like it's lip-synching Brussels, there's no reason why it can't be headquartered there.
It reminds me of a George Carlin political punchline. After making a big to-do about the fact that he doesn't vote, he points out that another election is coming up and actually urges his audience to get out and vote:
"I'll be staying at home and doing essentially the same thing. The difference between you and me is, when I'm finished masturbating, I'll have a little something to show for it."
posted by JASmius at 8:37 PM
<<< Home