March 27, 2008

"The idea here, which McCain can’t say, but I can, is to essentially kill the U.N."

Said Charles Krauthammer.

29 comments:

XWL said...

The funny thing about this, is that the people posting that video think that'd hurt McCain.

'Ohhhh, look at that awful democracy lovin' McCain, he's in bed with some of those eeeevil NeoCons (and when I say NeoCon, of course I mostly mean Jeeeewwwwwsss), and even agrees with them on some issues. How could any progressive thinking person think that it might be a good idea to weaken our association with an organization rife with despotic regimes, corruption, and a friendly haven to every America-hating dictator, and instead strengthen our cooperation with other democratic states and do what we can to encourage the development of even more democracies.'

Simon said...

I don't think that's what McCain's saying, although I'd want to see the whole speech not just a snippet. But if that was what was in play - as Krauthammer says, creating a parallel organization that has some kind of legitimacy, that actually does stuff, and thereby sidelining and eventually suffocating the United Nations -- that'd be wonderful.

ricpic said...

Have no fear peace loving progressives, a McCain administration would lovingly cooperate in wrapping the American Gullivar in an ever tightening web of progressive commitments, worldwide.

Middle Class Guy said...

Seeing as the UN has been totally ineffectual and corrupt for over thirty years, it would be no great loss. Drive a stake in its heart. RIP.

Tim said...

Killing off the UN would be a good start. If we can't kill it off, zeroing out our contributions and exercising eminent domain on the building in Turtle Bay we paid for, and then forcibly evicting the klepto-crats to Sudan or some such place would be acceptable.

We can forgive their long overdue, unpaid parking tickets as a token of our goodwill.

Kirk Parker said...

He's got my vote twice if that's really what it means, and 10 times at least if he can actually pull it off.

Chip Ahoy said...

↑ + What you guys said.

Revenant said...

If I thought McCain would kill the UN, I'd actually vote for the guy.

chuckR said...

Kirk, from your voting plans, sounds like you live in Chicago.

The UN is by turns corrupt (Oil for Food), incompetent (too numerous to list) and downright evil (Congo 'peacekeepers' involvement in sexual abuse of refugees).

The carrier Forrestal, from which McCain flew, is laid up in RI. If the bottom were recoverable, wouldn't it be great to refurb it as a hospital ship, under the US flag, to deal with littoral disasters such as the Boxing Day tsunami? And you could also have routine humanitarian visits, too. You could do it, including operating costs, with the $400million+ we contribute to the UN annually. Preposition it at Diego Garcia - with UK permission of course.

Feed a disaster victim, starve a Geneva bureaucrat. Sounds like a good trade to me.

MadisonMan said...

To essentially kill it. Not to kill it, to essentially kill it.

Why is that adverb there?

kimsch said...

MM, since the UN isn't actually living you can't literally kill it, so essentially it'll have to be...

Simon said...

MM - In context, quite obviously "the essence of McCain's proposal is to kill the U.N.," but an equally valid interpretation would be that "the proposal would kill the U.N. in all essential regards, but without dispatching the husk." Your comment's giving me a moment similar to the part of Alito's confirmation hearings where a Senator was befuddled by and quibbling over Alito's use of the word "inapt" - you could see the answer all over Alito's face, "what do you want me to say here? It's a word!" Krauthammer's formulation would make sense in writing, and certainly so allowing for the extemporaneous, verbal setting.

knoxwhirled said...

I'm all for it, but sounds too good to be true!

stealth pundit said...

Given the corruptness and incompetence of the UN wouldn't this really be more like assisted suicide?

Competition is good - though competing with the UN would be like the NE Patriots playing a PeeWee football team. The UN would last about 3 seconds and then go running to their Mommies.

Middle Class Guy said...

chuckR said...
Kirk, from your voting plans, sounds like you live in Chicago.



Vote early, vote often, and bring all your dead relatives with you. That is the Chicago way. Eh, you gotta pr'blem wid dat?

rcocean said...

From the Speech:

America must be a model citizen if we want others to look to us as a model. How we behave at home affects how we are perceived abroad. I believe we should close Guantanamo and work with our allies to forge a new international understanding on the disposition of dangerous detainees under our control.

Our goal must be to win the "hearts and minds" of the vast majority of moderate Muslims who do not want their future controlled by a minority of violent extremists. In this struggle, scholarships will be far more important than smart bombs.

There is such a thing as international good citizenship. We need to be good stewards of our planet and join with other nations to help preserve our common home. We need a successor to the Kyoto Treaty, a cap-and-trade system...

Trooper York said...

Drudge Report March 26, 2008

Yesterday in a foreign policy address in Los Angeles, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) called for the United State to create and lead a “Justice League of Democracies” so that all of the superheroes of both DC and Marvel Comics would be on the same side in the war on terror. “There is no reason why Superman and Spiderman can’t work together to help in the war on Terror” said the octogenarian candidate. Reactions have been mixed in the Superhero community. Captain America has already stated that he would not join any group that included Batman who he termed a pedophile and a rodent with wings. The Green Arrow called the Vision a robotic neo-con who couldn’t pour piss out of boot and demanded that Barack Obama head the new Justice League as he was the only true superhero. Senator Hillary Clinton could not be reached for comment as she is currently under sniper fire while campaigning in Oxnard, California….developing.

B said...

While on a tour of the UN in April 2001 - my wife and I were chaperoning high school students - the anti-American rhetoric by our Kenyan-born hostess caused a few of our girls to actually start crying. One mother told the hostess to "cool the anti-American" talk, which only made the hostess more argumentative. During her lecture about the "imperialistic history of the US vs the goodness of the Marxist societies" I asked where she was educated. Her answer: the University of Wisconsin, Madison. I told her the tour was over and went and found security to make certain we would have no more politically thoughtless talk from such a spoiled, ungrateful young bitch. We were led to the first floor gift store.

When we returned, every student wrote letters to our Congressman and our two "wonderful" Senators, Mrs' Feinstein and Boxer.
Interestingly, not one student, teacher or chaperone heard anything from Madame Boxer, while everyone of us received a response from Senator Feinstein, expressing her sadness at the unwillingness of some of our "guests" to act with maturity and grace. Our Congressman responded with a form letter thanking us for our "interest in his thoughts on this important matter".

So here's my question: if Communism took 70 years to prove it couldn't work and capsize, how much longer do we have to wait for this provably worthless exercize called the "United Nations" to fall?

Paul Zrimsek said...

Wishful thinking on Krauthammer's part. While I'd like to kill the UN just as much as he would, I doubt that McCain has anything more in mind than a more geographically diverse NATO. He probably does envision using it to end-run the UN on occasion just as Bill Clinton did in Kosovo, but I'd be very surprised if he wants to kill it even "essentially".

Daryl said...

I disagree that this would kill the U.N.

It would certainly sidestep the U.N. and strip the U.N. of much of its moral (and otherwise) authority when it comes to dealing with human rights issues (free speech, preventing genocide, etc.)

But there is still a place for a United Nations in which every country in the world (except Israel!) is recognized, no matter how fascist, totalitarian, or just plain bad. As soon as I figure out what it is, I will get back to you.

rastajenk said...

The comments in the link were a real hoot.

Crimso said...

"It would certainly sidestep the U.N. and strip the U.N. of much of its moral (and otherwise) authority when it comes to dealing with human rights issues (free speech, preventing genocide, etc.)"

It has zero moral authority. None. Zilch.

Zeb Quinn said...

The league of democracies idea is excellent. They may however run into a problem defining "democratic." Hugo Chavez is supposedly a democratically elected head of state. As is Dmitry Medvedev. Tinhorn dictators will learn how to game it to give the appearance of democracy, forcing the body to make fine line distinctions between rogue regimes.

Original Mike said...

Capital idea. But killing the UN isn't worth the fight (nor would it succeed). As other's have suggested, just do an end run around it.

PatCA said...

The comments over there are strange. Why would anyone NOT want an organization of states that excluded rogues like Sudan?

Don't think--feel.

Kirk Parker said...

chuckR and MCG,

Give me a break! Seattle's the new Chicago; I live close enough to the former to just visit on election day. No inconvenient uprooting of the family required at all! :-)

Revenant said...

It would certainly sidestep the U.N. and strip the U.N. of much of its moral (and otherwise) authority when it comes to dealing with human rights issues (free speech, preventing genocide, etc.)

I've gotta go with Crimso on this one. Moral authority? Its human rights division is populated by most of the worst human-rights offenders on the planet (who naturally devote their time to bashing Israel), its genocide prevention measures have never managed to prevent any genocide, and its free-speech measures tend to promote censorship and government regulation.

Joe said...

In my mind, "to essentially kill" the UN would be to reduce it nothing more than the general assembly; a single place where diplomats could bloviate and penny-ante dictatorships could pretend they are important.

Doyle said...

I think essentially killing Charles Krauthammer would do a lot more good.