Mark Steyn elaborates on the scourge of the UN, the lives it costs, the problem of George Clooney, and what is needed in Darfur. As only Mark can.
New coalition of willing needed in Darfur
Here’s the lesson of the past three years: The UN kills…and as I wrote on this page in July 2004: “The problem is, by the time you’ve gone through the UN, everyone’s dead.” And as I wrote in Britain’s Daily Telegraph in September 2004: “The US agreed to go the UN route and it looks like they’ll have a really strongish compromise resolution ready to go about a week after the last villager’s been murdered and his wife gang-raped.” …
Meaningful UN action is never gonna happen. Sudan has at least two Security Council vetoes in its pocket: China gets 6 per cent of its oil from the country, while Russia has less obviously commercial reasons and more of a general philosophical belief in the right of sovereign states to butcher their own…
[A]s yet another Kofi-appointed UN committee boldly declared, “genocide anywhere is a threat to the security of all and should never be tolerated”. So fortunately what’s going on in the Sudan isn’t genocide. Instead, it’s just hundreds of thousands of corpses who happen to be from the same ethnic group, which means the UN can go on tolerating it until everyone’s dead, at which point the so-called “decent left” can support a “multinational” force under the auspices of the Arab League going in to ensure the corpses don’t pollute the water supply.
“As only Mark can.”
Steyn, is one of a very few, that could fillet a fish, without using a knife. You (TB) are another.
The U.N. if it must exist to comfort useless idiots and leftists, (yes, I know redundancy) must be uprooted from American soil.
Pardon me if i don’t jump on the Steyn bandwagon.
He was wrong about Iraq before the war, and showed his ignorance further after the “Mission Accomplished” moment.
WAIT!!!!!!!!!!
Sudan produces oil?
If the nation in question produces oil, we simply can’t intervene. The minute US soldier one plants boots on the ground there, it’s “Blood for Oil”, and that’s a big no-no, isn’t it? That’s why the Iraq War is bad.
Right?
Also,(most) Iraqis are slightly darker caucasians than (most) white Americans, so it’s a “racist” war. Well, so are the Sudanese goon squads we’d be fighting in Darfur. Hell, they’re probably (for the most part) even darker caucasians than the Iraqis! Nope, “1-2-3-4 We Don’t Want Your Racist War!”
Right?
And we’re not fighting christians in Iraq (and around the world), we’re fighting the followers of the “Religion of Peace”, and that’s “christo-facism”.
Right?
Well, this would be another clash with the “Religion of Peace”, so sorry Georgie, no dice.
Remember: “Act Now to Stop War and End Racism”!
Hey, I didn’t make the rules for what constitutes a just war or righteous armed intervention… the left did.
And rules are rules.
Sorry, just can’t support a “racist, christo-facist, war for oil”.
Last time I did that all it did was get me called a simple minded, easily decieved, fool and a Nazi war-monger.
And I won’t make THAT mistake again.
This concludes today’s dose of “Bullmoose’s Cynical Sarcasm”.
Makes you think though. If only the Kurds, Marsh Arabs, and Shias in Iraq were black, apparently Hollywood would be the Iraq War’s biggest supporters…
Or maybe I’m still being cynical.
Still waiting for mass demonstrations at the Sudanese consulates around the world, organized by the “peace” movement, demanding an end to the racist genocide perpetrated by the Sudanese government.
Not gonna hold my breath though…