We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
«  
  »

Fox kills chickens, blames barking dogs

· International affairs

The UN continues to confirm that it is everything its detractors says it is and so much more. Kofi Anan is now blaming the UK and USA, the two countries which produced people in official positions who were willing to point out that the UN ‘sanctions’ in Iraq were a complete scandal, for the way things played out. The sooner this bizarre organisation is destroyed the better.

April 19th, 2005 |

9 comments to Fox kills chickens, blames barking dogs

  • Brian Micklethwait
    April 19, 2005 at 2:37 pm

    Quite right. May it soon not so much RIP as FIH (fry in hell).

    I regard it as a good sign that the UN has finally allowed a crappy Hollywood movie (The Interpreter – Penn/Kidman – directed by Sydney Pollack (sp?)) which assumes the UN’s total wonderfulness to be made inside its sacred portals.

    They’re on the defensive and they know it.

  • Stehpinkeln
    April 19, 2005 at 5:06 pm

    Burnt Toast. Black crumbs in the bottom of the toaster burnt toast. I bet on Strategypage.com that the US Congress would not Fund the UN this year unless Koffi resigns. Once Koffi is out of the way, the investagators will be able to do a through job of house cleaning at the UN, assuming President Bush is willing an able to save the thing.
    The real issue is how to seperate the good functions performed by the UN from it’s corruption and political chicanery. The first step there, of course is deciding just what is ‘good’ and what is ‘bad’.

    “The world does not need a new framework of treaties, least of all a world government, but the freedom to prosper as nations on a planet in which everything except oppression is permitted. For it is self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights, that the only excuse for government is to secure these rights and that these words can be translated into every living tongue.”
    -wretchard

  • Ted Schuerzinger
    April 19, 2005 at 6:33 pm

    The BBC, of course, are giddy with glee: US ‘tycoon’ in oil for food scandal

    The RSS feed is even worse: It says a Texan (gotta mention that!) and two others (whose nationalities are conveniently omitted) are involved.

  • Verity
    April 19, 2005 at 11:31 pm

    The real issue is how to seperate the good functions performed by the UN from it’s corruption and political chicanery

    I defy anyone to name one function of the UN which could be agreed by reasonable people to be “good”. They do absolutely nothing that could not be done better and cheaper independently.

  • Al Maviva
    April 19, 2005 at 11:55 pm

    Clinton pardon recipient Marc Rich also benefitted mightily in oil-for-food, but that’s somehow not above-the-fold or even “A Section” material. Wonder why?

    On the larger issue, John Bolton may be the last best hope for the UN, if he manages to get confirmed by the Senate and fill the Jeanne Kirkpatrick seat at the UN. Yes, I view that ambassadorship as requiring a moral giant; I don’t know if Bolton is the guy, but he is known to be very blunt and to speak truth to anybody. His purpose in going is clearly to act as a Jesse Helms proxy – to tell ’em where it’s at, and to demand reform. I think Kofi has said good things about Bolton (and said good things about Helms’ landmark speech) because he realizes a change is needed to, and Kofi himself probably isn’t strong or declasse enough to pound the table demand it, but Bolton and Bush certainly are.

    Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately from a liberties standpoint, Bolton is being blocked by our insanely conservative and classical liberal-hating Democrats, who cannot stand the idea of somebody going to the UN and telling it to shape up. To their way of thinking we need to be more like Brussels and the UN, rather than demanding that they act more like us and become accountable, effective, and responsive, etc. Proving once again that the Dems actually are in league with the enemies of mankind, they will probably insist on a feckless pussy like Danforth, somebody who will be sure to spill no milk, not punch anybody out on the playground, and for God’s sake, wont speak out of turn or rudely. In this way, the UN will stagger onward, neither neutered nor fixed, until a really efficient robber baron can be brought in to run the thing and bring the developed world to heel. The real sin of George Bush is, of course, that he says what he means, and vice versa, and this is horrifying to the well groomed radicals who run the left in this country, and who run the country in your country and most of Europe. It’s simply unthinkable that a man could have such bad manners as to think there is such a thing as the truth, then say it. Bolton is cut from that cloth, so he must be stopped before he gets to the microphone…

    Honest to God, the more I think about it, the more pissed off I get. Are the Dems that stupid about their own interests to think that a corrupt, flabby UN that helps boost police states and thugocracies around the world, is better for their interests than a reformed, well run UN? I’d personally rather deal with the challenges posed to sovereignty by a well run and competent UN, since it’s the only barrier to ghastly outcomes for milions upon millions of individuals around the world. Dems should love the notion of a respected, overbearing UN; it’s right up their alley. But a crooked and ineffective UN doesn’t do anything except perpetuate more problems, and worst of all, reactionaries like me can reject it en toto as a corrupt morass. Whereas a corrupt but robustly funded UN is merely a sinkhole into which the West pours billions, while the millions die and the peacekeepers rob, rape, and stand by as witness to genocide, a cleanly run and effective UN is a monument to statism and a threat to liberty, as well as a real boon to a lot of people who are suffering. I have to wonder if the Dems are that evil that they want to perpetuate the snake pit in Turtle Bay, or so infallibly stupid that they can’t work this all out. It’s maddening, and I think I’m about to go swill bourbon lest my head explode. Argh.

  • Beck
    April 20, 2005 at 3:24 am

    There are plenty of functions which the UN performs quite effectively–likely better than any other institution in the world could perform. A (far from complete) list:

    1) Raping underage children
    2) Graft
    3) Racking up frequent flier miles
    4) Waste
    5) Producing useless studies drawing seemingly random & unsupportable conclusions whose primary purpose is to justify further studies and/or expenditures.
    6) Blaming things on the United States and/or Israel
    7) Double parking in New York City
    8) One word: Bureaucracy
    9) Did I mention the bit about rape? The UN is REALLY good at rape.

  • Al Maviva
    April 20, 2005 at 2:18 pm

    Beck, very good. It reminds me of a couple lines in Blazing Saddles.

    First, where Hedley Lamarr is taking job applications for a gang to terrorize the town:

    Lamarr: Qualifications?
    Applicant: Rape, murder, arson, and rape.
    Lamarr: You said rape twice.
    Applicant: (gleefully) I like rape.
    Lamarr: Charming. Sign right here.

    Then there’s Taggart’s plan to terrorize the local town:

    Taggart: We’ll work up a “Number 6” on ’em.

    Hedley Lamarr: “Number 6”? I’m afraid I’m not familiar with that one…

    Taggart: Well, that’s where we go a-ridin’ into town, a whampin’ and whompin’ every livin’ thing that moves within an inch of its life. Except the women folks, of course.

    Hedley Lamarr: You spare the women?

    Taggart: NAW. We rape the shit out of them at the Number 6 Dance later on.

    Hedley Lamarr: Marvelous.

    So there you have it. UN Peacekeeping: clearly in competition with a Mel Brooks farce.

  • Jacob
    April 20, 2005 at 11:00 pm

    “…is better for their interests than a reformed, well run UN? ”

    …a reformed, well run UN? ???

    Utopia never loses it’s allure.

  • Jack Tanner
    April 21, 2005 at 8:23 pm

    A reformed well run UN would be so small it would hardly be noticable. What would all of the foreign educated 3rd Worlders do for a living?

«  
  »