Let’s see. In the last week, Iran, an UN member nation, has (once again, ’cause it’s done it before) called for the destruction of Israel, another UN member nation. Now, Iran, an UN member nation (although God alone knows why) admits that it is supplying long range missiles to a terrorist group committed to destroying Israel (a nation the UN itself created).
I suspect that the UN wants to see whether Iran will do something really naughty before acting. After all, you have to pick your battles and, right now, the UN is waiting to see if Iran solves the UN’s pesky little Israel problem by following through on its promises. Then, after the nuclear bomb incinerates that little nation, the UN can huff, and puff, and sanction Iran. I’m just disgusted.
Filed under: Iran, Israel, United Nations
I think if we assassinate Kofi Annan, we might be able to kick Iran out. Otherwise, why would anyone do anything? Maybe you could bribe the UN to kick out Iran, maybe, but then Iran will counter-bribe, and you know how corrupt the UN is.
Ever since Bush maintained the Carter order not to do assassinations, things have gone way downhill.
The Constitution protects people that are part of the United States from intimidation and terror tactics, but I don’t think this mercy applies to foreigners. Especially foreigners, on US soil, sabotaging US foreign policy. We used to call those spies, sabotuers, and agent provocateurs a few decades ago. And they used to be not protected by the US Constitution or international agreements other than hostage negotiation trades.
Just stop funding it.
Congress is in charge of funding. With the way the deficit is being cut in half, a lot of those guys on the hill will want to spend more. I don’t think I have the patience to work on some deal that the Democrats can obstruct, nor do I have the patience to wait for the Republicans to do it only for the Democrats to shoot it down.
It’s easier said than done, and it goes against the same problems as that argument I had with dave on Dean’s world. President Bush can get out of the UN, and when Congress has to deal with this fait accompli (Executive handles foreign policy), then Congress would have to justify to their constituents how they are funding an organization that they are no longer part of.
Currently, so long as Bush keeps talking to the UN like they are legitimate, using it, drafting resolutions in it, Congress has the perfect excuse to keep funding it. Oh sure, there are Senators and Congressmen and women who don’t like the UN and want to suspend funding until it ‘reforms’. But with the way politics works, that is not going to be permanent, eventually the pro-UN guys will cut a deal and funding will increase for the UN.
There are enough people in the US,both Left and Right, that fear leaving the UN for there to be no unification of policy towards it. The Left doesn’t want to leave the UN because they think it would make us unilateral and immoral. The right doesn’t want to leave the UN because they are afraid of the resolutions that would pass free from US veto if we left. They are afraid that leaving would make the UN more powerful and destructive.
Without unification of policy, the Senators can obstruct and maintain funding to the UN
I think what Bush is doing with talks and the UN is stalling until Israel has wiped out the terrorists in Lebanon and then moved over to threaten more of the same to Syria and Iran if they don’t stop funding them.
One thing to remember. Don’t believe what you read in the papers. It’s not meant to inform, but to distort and misdirect. Not even the comics are any good anymore.
I’m not so sure about that being what Bush is doing. He doesn’t seem like a person that is capable of that kind of deception, delaying campaign. Sure, he has done that in the past, delayed, but usually it benefited the enemies (Iraq 2003) more than our allies or ourselves.
Most of the time, I wouldn’t challenge what is going on inside the administration, because I don’t have direct connections or sources inside. However, the administration has had 6 years for me to analyze, and the pattern I derived gives me confidence in predicting the Bush strategy. Delaying, may or may not be Bush’s strategy, but I am not confident that Bush has the deception capabilities to pull it off to our advantage or Israel’s advantage.
Why did you say I should not believe what is in the newspapers? I don’t actually read any newspapers, just the internet and Fox News.
This is to Ravana, who might be reading or might not be reading.
I found a link to varifrank where he was talking about people disagreeing and people being disagreeable.
http://varifrank.com/archives/2004/10/discourse.php
If you click on my name, you can find a post on my blog that links back to Bookworm’s post where Ravana was arguing, if you want to read my last response to Ravana.
I learned along time ago that not all lefties are idiots and not all right wingers are Klan members. People are people, you accept them as they are or you leave them alone. All I ever ask of someone in regards to their politics is the answer to this one question:
“Are you prepared to be wrong?”
If someone wants to talk about politics with me, that’s the first question I ask. If you’re not prepared to be wrong, then there’s nothing to be said and we should talk about the negative effects of the ocean tide on fishing. I am prepared to be wrong; I am always interested in hearing a different idea on a subject. I am a pragmatist before I am anything else. I’m not saying that you are wrong, but if you are not prepared for the possibility that you might be wrong, then we are not having a conversation, we are just listening to the b-b’s in our heads rattle around. I don’t believe any human owns the truth, the truth is discovered through a sort of adversarial process akin to the way our law works, or when its done properly, science works by using the skeptical analysis approach.
We discover the truth together. None of us owns the truth, it is discovered via our discourse and disagreement.
Embrace the diversity of thought, kids. It’s your only hope in discovering the truth.
My criterion for political debate is that we agree on the facts first. Most liberals have no truck with facts and deal only with feelings.
I’m prepared to be convinced that I’m wrong, but only be if the facts dictate it.
No one, I repeat, NO ONE, should be surprised at anything the UN says or does. It is at best a failure, and at worst an agent for evil. I strongly suspect that a majority of the UN would cheer vocally if/when Iran follows through on its threat to wipe Israel off the map, and most others would cheer silently. Then, they’d hold an emergency session and sanction Israel for forcing Iran to needlessly expend its WMD’s……………