Monday, April 18, 2005

Who should the US send to the U.N.?

If you're a Democrat, apparently not someone who might dare to question the legitimacy of an organization who spends the majority of it's time making backroom deals for personal profit, sexually abusing those they are sent to protect, or writing numerous resolutions targeting the only true Democracy in the Middle East while ignoring genocidal dictators throughout the world.

It's about time someone on the left realizes that without the US, the U.N. has no power. For almost all major combat initiatives they require US military assistance. For almost all aid deployment they require US donations as well as equipment. You just have to look at the recent Tsunami to see exactly what the U.N. can really do. While the U.N. was still holding strategy meetings to discuss what should be done, the US and Aussies were on the scene with manpower, equipment and supplies helping the people directly.

Even after the U.N. decided to get involved they spent most of their time mixing their meager supplies in with US Aid trucks and supplies so that they could claim they were working. Some people even went so far as to suggest the American's and Aussies should wear the blue U.N. insignia to not confuse the populace. As if a person who just lost their home and family and has no food or water really care what color helmet a person is wearing.

It is this type of system that President Bush is looking to send Mr. Bolton into. I for one look forward to seeing someone with a little power be willing to act as a voice of reason for an out of control international body instead of just being the "yes man" I'm sad to say Canada, through it's ambassador, has become.

And don't even get me started on how they select who gets on the different commissions such as 'Human Rights'.

Read Mark Steyn's article on the subject that inspired this whole rant, here.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Who Links Here