Centroles wrote:hobitbob wrote:Quote:Is this an organization that can be trusted with anything more serious than distribution of food and medicine?
To sane people, the distribution of food and medicine is far more important than killing people.
Frankly, I have heard far too many reports of how the aforementioned regimes intercepted these food and medicine distribution networks in order to sell them for profit to it's richer residents to even trust the UN with this task.
As the adage goes, give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
The oppressive regimes of which I speak subjugate their constituents to environments that make it impossible for them to become self sufficent and improve their conditions.
Well said and thanks for voicing that observation----it is a valid one and often ignored by those myopic fanatics who label any action by the US as genocidal and imperialistic while at the same time trying to "hoodwink" the unknowing into thinking that the actions of the UN are altruistic and pure of motive. Reality provides evidence that just the opposite is true----the UN is motivated and controlled by the corrupt and narrowly defined self interests of each of the members. Perhaps a STRONG leader would provide more efficient opperation of the UN but the idealistic, toothless Charter prevents a weak leader from accomplishing his mission. Kofi Annan is a charming diplomat but I have seen no other qualities worth mentioning.
Centroles wrote:The trend is that the US is once again moving towards isolationism. If it instead invested a little more into Iraq and Afganistan, it could set in place the infrastructure to give these nations productive, self sufficent economies that ensure they'll never fall back under the control of terrorists.
What is the basis for your concern that the US is retreating toward isolationism. What ever the faults of the current administration, it is above all else pragmatic and our pragmatic efforts should lead to the conclusion that the trend is just the opposite of what you suggest. It is for pragmatic reasons that the US is becoming MORE, not less, involved in global affairs.
World events have forced the US into taking unilateral actions. We would have much preferred to be involved in multilateral actions for many reasons which, if not already evident, will become clear in the near future.
This statement is only valid in the event Bush and company are allowed to continue their pro-active efforts to stagilize the world and especially the Middle East. If a fool such as Howard Dean is elected then all this good work and the lives lost will be for naught. I only need point to the administration of Jimmy Carter to prove my point. He did not have the political will to deal with Iran for example. The moment Reagon was elected----the hostages were released. Terrorists, oppressive dictators and our other enemies around the world are adept at drawing conclusions about the WILL of our presidents. Re: Clinton----bin Laden came to power and spread his poisonous network around the globe while Clinton was in power. What did he do----wrung his hands, gnashed his teeth and fired off about a Billion dollars worth of cruise missiles at rocks in Afghanistan while he was in a closet with Monica all the while talking to a Senator on the phone. But yet has the gall to acuse Bush of allowing Bin Laden to prosper and grow his organization-----such is the sorry state of politics in this country.
