It is often assumed that we should support
various international bodies
and international law.
This is like saying one should support the government
just because it exists.
In reality,
these bodies need to earn our support.
They need to prove
to us that they should be respected.
Many international bodies
seem utterly unable to understand this point.
The UN "Human Rights" Council, Nov 2010, focuses on the "crimes" of America. A comical group of repressive dictatorships
claims to be "concerned" about the lack of human rights in the United States.
Cuba, Iran, North Korea,
Qatar, Egypt,
China and Libya
all express their concern at the lack of human rights in America.
After watching this, no intelligent person should
support the UN,
or respect what it says.
The UN should be shut down,
or at least it should expel all non-democracies.
What an Orwellian video. The UN is a glimpse into madness.
Iran is concerned about womens' rights in the US.
It is also concerned about insults to Islam.
China too pretends to be interested in human rights for the day,
and says it is concerned about the lack of Internet freedom
in the US.
Many of the ignorant thugs bang on about racial discrimination against blacks in the US,
rather ignoring the fact that the US has a black President.
When will Egypt have a Christian President?
When will Iran have a Jewish President?
When will any of these countries have free elections?
I am opposed to the UN,
because it has
unfree countries
as members.
This is not a happy, imaginary world where
all nations are respectable,
and the UN can deal with the rare outbreaks of lawlessness.
Rather,
this is - as it always has been - a world where
criminals run entire countries,
where many nation states are headed by unelected dictators, tyrants,
racists,
hate-filled religious fanatics,
communist fanatics
and all-out genocidal killers.
Many "ambassadors"
represent thugs with Swiss bank accounts,
not the people of their country.
By giving these unelected thugs a vote,
the UN loses all credibility.
No intelligent person should
support the UN,
or respect what it says,
or abide by what it says.
The UN should be shut down,
or at the very least all non-democracies should be expelled.
The idea that the UN has moral authority I find sick.
If there is to be a global policeman,
then surely we should prefer it to grow out of NATO,
which at least roughly
represents the democracies
and the countries with the best records on human rights and civil liberties
- rather than the UN,
which represents every thug, junta and oppressive regime there is.
And gives Russia and China a veto.
Only if all non-democratic countries
(including Russia and China) are expelled
could the UN start to
have any moral authority.
Immanuel Kant and the Iraq war
(copies here
and here)
by Roger Scruton,
on Kant's idea of international law.
"Kant is clear that a League of Nations can establish
a genuine rule of law only if its
members are also republics.
...
States in which this command is not obeyed by the rulers
.. are states that violate the moral law.
.. Such states are
intrinsically illegitimate,
which means that their disappearance is good in itself, and the aim and
desire of all rational beings."
A mischievous place
by Ernest W. Lefever - on the fantasy, black comedy
and moral bankruptcy of the United Nations,
the successor to the League of
Nations.
- "Neither body played a
discernible role in defeating the most grievous
enemies of freedom and human rights in the 20th
century."
U.N. Should Change - or U.S. Should Quit
by David Frum and Richard Perle.
- "The United Nations is the tooth fairy of American politics:
Few adults believe in it, but it's generally regarded as a
harmless story to amuse the children. Since 9/11,
however, the U.N. has ceased to be harmless"
The UN Secretary-General
Kofi Annan,
probably the worst UN Secretary-General ever.
He presided over:
The Rwandan genocide, 1994.
Kofi Annan might have averted the genocide, had he acted early.
But he chose inaction.
The UN stood by watching as black Africans were slaughtered.
The Bosnian genocide, 1992-5.
Again, the UN stands by watching as people it is meant to protect are slaughtered.
The Sudan genocide, ongoing,
showed that
Kofi Annan learned nothing from Rwanda.
Another genocide of black Africans rages,
and again, Kofi Annan does nothing.
Kofi Annan's Legacy of Failure, Nile Gardiner, December 11, 2006
- "Annan's departure from office has not come soon enough. His 10 years in power have been a monumental failure, and he leaves behind an institution whose standing could barely be lower and a legacy that is a testament to mismanagement, corruption, and anti-Americanism.
...
The U.N.'s new Human Rights Council, touted by Annan as a breakthrough for the U.N., is an unmitigated farce
...
In a March 2006 poll conducted by Gallup in the United States,
64 percent of respondents said the United Nations was "doing a poor job",
the most negative rating for the U.N. in its history."
During the
"Muhammed cartoons" riots of 2006,
as Christian children were burnt alive
by Islamic religious fascists angry about cartoons,
Kofi Annan took the side of the fascists.
He said:
"You don't joke about other people's religion,
and you must respect what is holy for other people."
Arsehole.
The new UN Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon
is not much better.
Without fundamental reform of the UN, its record of failure will continue.
Ban Ki-Moon attacks the movie Fitna, Mar 2008.
"I condemn, in the strongest terms, the airing of Geert Wilders' offensively anti-Islamic film.
There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence.
The right of free expression is not at stake here. I acknowledge the efforts of the Government of the Netherlands to stop the broadcast of this film, and appeal for calm to those understandably offended by it."
Appeal for calm?
You mean this film might lead to
violence?
From who?
Is he suggesting Muslims might respond to criticism with
violence?
The UN, Dec 2011, holds a minute's silence
for the death of the genocidal monster
Kim Jong-il.
(Kim Jong-il ran
concentration camps
and
gas chambers.)
This really sums up the UN.
The list of
member states
(and here)
of the
UN "Human Rights" Council is a disgusting joke,
as was its predecessor, the
UN Commission on "Human Rights".
Put simply, it includes countries that do not believe in human rights.
As at
2010, it includes the "Not Free" countries of:
Angola,
Cameroon, Libya,
the Maldives,
China,
Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia,
Russia and Cuba.
No sane person should take seriously anything this Council says.
Its predecessor, the UN Commission on "Human Rights":
"Rights abuser" Cuba put on U.N. action panel, Jan. 26, 2005
- Cuba and Zimbabwe appointed to an elite "action panel"
that will influence the work of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.
Sudan is getting away with murder
by Mark Steyn.
The worst genocide of 2004
was being carried out by the
Arab Islamist fascist regime of
Sudan
against black Africans.
The UN's response?
In 2004,
Sudan - that is, the perpetrator of the genocide
- was elected to the
UN Human Rights Commission.
This sums up the
UN Human Rights Commission in a nutshell.
"The Sudanese representative, by the way, immediately professed himself
concerned by human rights abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib."
Freedom House
ranked the members of the
UN "Human Rights" Commission:
5 of the 15 most repressive governments in the world
- China, Cuba, Eritrea, Saudi
Arabia, and Sudan
- are members of the UN Human Rights Commission.
8 other countries ranked as "Not Free"
- Bhutan, Egypt, Mauritania,
Pakistan, Qatar, Swaziland, Togo, and Zimbabwe
- are members of the UN Human Rights Commission.
6 of the 18 most repressive governments in the world
- China, Cuba, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe
- are members of the UN Human Rights Commission.
9 other countries ranked as "Not Free"
- Bhutan, Egypt, Guinea, Mauritania, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Swaziland, and Togo
- are members of the UN Human Rights Commission.
The new, "reformed",
UN "Human Rights" Council is just the same.
The US and Israel were right to vote against its existence.
June 2006:
"The new UN Human Rights Council voted Friday to make a review of alleged human rights abuses by Israel
a permanent feature of every council session."
The members now include Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and Cuba.
Anyone who takes what this council says about human rights seriously
needs their head examined.
In its first 5 months of existence,
the U.N. "Human Rights" Council
held no less than 3 emergency sessions on Israel,
and failed to pass one resolution on any country other than Israel.
UNHRC slams Israel for the 7th time, Dec. 8, 2006
- "The UN Human Rights Council passed a seventh resolution criticizing Israel
on Friday,
...
The rights body, which has only condemned the Israeli government
in its seven-month existence .."
The UN "Human Rights" Council has resolved to single out one member state - Israel - for permanent indictment on the council agenda.
It has institutionalized the condemnation of Israel as a standing item on the council agenda and institutionalized the mandate of the special investigator on "Israeli violations of the principles and bases of international law" in the Palestinian territories - its only indefinite, open-ended and one-sided investigative mandate.
There have been 9 resolutions condemning one member state only (Israel) but none of any of the other 191 countries
(including Sudan, Zimbabwe, China, Russia, Cuba, Iran or North Korea).
John Dugard, Oct 2007,
compares democracy-hating, human rights-hating,
anti-semitic, Jew-killing Palestinian Islamofascists
to the French resistance against Fascism:
" 'Inevitably in a military occupation, there are likely to be those engaged in resistance.' These people may be labelled terrorists, Mr Dugard added, but history treats them differently. He cited the example of the French Resistance during World War II, and those in Namibia who fought occupation by South Africa. 'Now,' he said, 'they are in government and treated as heroes.' "
Jean Ziegler
is on the UN "Human Rights" Council Advisory Committee.
Stunning speech by UN Watch
to the UN "Human Rights" Council, 23 March 2007.
A rare occasion when truth is spoken to power in the halls of the amoral UN.
In just 4 minutes he sums up everything that is wrong with the UN
and international "law".
"the racist murderers and rapists of Darfur women tell us they care about
the rights of Palestinian women;
the occupiers of Tibet care about the occupied;
and the butchers of Muslims in Chechnya care about Muslims.
But do these self-proclaimed defenders truly care about Palestinian rights?
...
in truth, the dictators who run this Council couldn't care less about Palestinians, or about any human rights.
They seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state, to scapegoat the Jewish people. They also seek something else: to distort and pervert the very language and idea of human rights."
Disgusting reply by
the UN "Human Rights" Council president
Luis Alfonso De Alba
of Mexico.
UN Watch compilation
of the kind of speech
at the UN "Human Rights" Council
that Luis Alfonso De Alba finds acceptable
(i.e. lies and abuse of human rights from dictator's lackeys).
Human Rights Under Assault
- Watching what actually goes on at the
U.N. "Human Rights" Council
is the best cure for anyone who believes in the UN.
The UN "Human Rights" Council
has passed a number of Islamic tyrant-supported resolutions
condemning
"defamation of religions"
(and
here).
It should be illegal to criticise religions, apparently.
Why should anyone care what the UN "Human Rights" Council says,
when it demonstrates that it does not even believe in human rights?
Watching what actually goes on at the
U.N. "Human Rights" Council
is the best cure for anyone who believes in the UN.
The UN's other committees are just as useless, decadent and corrupt:
At the height of the crisis over Iran's nuclear weapons program
and its open threats to carry out genocide against the Jews of Israel:
Iran elected to UN disarmament commission,
Apr 2006.
The Iranian representative immediately said
that Israel's nuclear stockpile is among
"the major sources of concern with regard to global peace and security".
Also here.
Iran and Syria elected to U.N. Disarmament Commission, Anne Bayefsky, April 11, 2007.
Unbelievably, in Apr 2007
the U.N. re-elected Iran as a vice chairman of the U.N. "Disarmament" Commission.
And the U.N. "Disarmament" Commission elected Syria as its rapporteur.
Mohamed ElBaradei
is full of moral equivalence between dictatorships (like Egypt, Syria and Iran)
and democracies (like Israel):
"We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction, yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security."
Pakistan elected to IAEA Board of Governors, Sept 2009.
"The country's election to the Board of Governors is recognition of its long standing commitment to the aims and objectives of the IAEA".
As the Ace of Spades blog says:
"So that whole develop a nuke in violation of the non-proliferation treaty and then distribute the technology to places like Syria, Libya, Iran, and North Korea thing was in accordance with the the aims and objectives of the IAEA?"
UN Hits Bottom, Digs, 12 May 2007
- "Famine, corruption, runaway inflation, property confiscation, political repression
- none of these are sufficient to disqualify Zimbabwe from being elected chair of the
United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development."
Abdullah's U.N. Ploy: Tell us again about tolerance, tyrant, David Keyes, November 25, 2008.
It's disgusting that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is even allowed into the United States.
"Any sane discussion about tolerance would feature Saudi Arabia as the precise opposite of what is desired. Abdullah would be roundly castigated and one leader after another would denounce his regime. But that would be asking too much, for it would require a modicum of moral clarity and the ability to stand up for something other than immediate economic gain.
As Abdullah waxed poetic at the U.N., the West should be working furiously to undermine his regime.
...
That America sends billions of dollars of arms to an unelected government that crushes basic freedoms is as immoral as it is counter-productive."
I use PHP myself.
I'd like to know what (if anything)
I use that was developed in Egypt
(since 1600, say).
Let me know here.
Or even anything
I use that was developed in the entire Arab Islamic world
(since 1600).
Let me know here.
In 2008, responding to a deputy of the Egyptian parliament who was alarmed that Israeli books could be introduced into the Alexandria Library, Hosny said:
"Burn these books; if there are any there, I will myself burn them in front of you."
The International Court of Justice
- The representatives of the world's unelected thugs, genocidal killers
and hate-filled religious clerics,
claiming to pass judgements that we should respect.
Again, only if all non-democracies were expelled
from representation could this court start to have any legitimacy.
"The Israeli government has both a legal and a moral obligation to comply with the Israeli Supreme Court's decision regarding the security fence.
...
the Supreme Court is a creation of the Knesset and is therefore representative of all of the people"
"Contrast this with the questionable status of the International Court of Justice in The Hague. No Israeli judge may serve on that court as a permanent member, while sworn enemies of Israel serve among its judges, several of whom represent countries that do not abide by the rule of law.
...
Israel owes the International Court absolutely no deference. It is under neither a moral nor a legal obligation to give any weight to its predetermined decision."
Travesty at The Hague
- Charles Krauthammer
points out that the judgement was read out
by a judge from the tyranny of
China.
That really sums up the International Court of Justice.
Like the UN and the International Court of Justice,
the International Criminal Court
cannot assume we should support it.
It has to earn legitimacy.
It has to prove that I should support it.
If its first cases are against America or Israel,
I will dismiss it as just another hopelessly flawed
and corrupt body like the UN.
The UN-sponsored
"Alliance of Civilisations"
is meant to look at defusing the clash between the West and Islamism.
It is of course just another typical, hopelessly compromised, UN group
that no one should listen to.
Their 2006 report
shows that the group
includes:
Enemy leader, former President Mohammed Khatami
of
Iran
(Not Free),
who has the blood of Jews and allied soldiers on his hands,
not to mention the blood of Iranian homosexuals, atheists and pro-democracy dissidents.
Similar to the UN's absurd conferences by racists pretending to be against "racism",
or by human rights abusers pretending to be concerned about "human rights",
we have the farce of "anti-terrorism" conferences hosted by the state sponsor of terror Iran, May-June 2011.
Of course by "terrorism" they mean any action by America, Britain or Israel
to try to stop Islamic terrorism.
The Olympics shares the UN's creepy, selective morality.
The IOC banned apartheid South Africa from the Olympics from 1964 to 1992
because blacks did not have the right to vote,
and had
other human rights restricted.
The IOC banned Rhodesia from the Olympics from 1968 to 1980
because blacks did not have the right to vote,
and had
other human rights restricted.
And yet the IOC did not ban China
or the Soviet Union (*),
where no one had the right to vote,
there were no human rights,
and (in China) millions of people were killed by democide.
Nor did it ban the dozens of other dictatorships
- like Cuba, East Germany, North Korea, Yugoslavia, Iran, Iraq, Cambodia and Vietnam
- where no one had the right to vote
and (in some of them) millions were killed by democide.
(*) The Soviet Union was banned before WW2,
but not after
1952.
In fact, incredibly, the
1980 Olympics
were actually held
in the Soviet Union!
It makes their ban on South Africa and Rhodesia look creepy
rather than some principled stand.
Nor has their morality improved.
The 2008 Olympics
were held in the unfree state of China,
where no one has the right to vote
and freedom of religion does not exist.
The World Cup
has never been held in a tyranny, but
sadly that is changing:
The 2018 World Cup will be held in the mafia-state tyranny of
Russia,
beating bids from various civilized western democracies.
What a shame to break the World Cup's proud record
of never being held in a tyranny.
Interpol
(International Criminal Police Organization)
Interpol bizarrely got taken over by Nazi Germany
from 1938 to 1945.
Internationally it more or less ceased to function during those years.
Its list of past presidents
includes various Nazi butchers and war criminals,
including Reinhard Heydrich.
Interpol was revived after 1945.
Interpol assisted the cause of international terror in Feb 2010 when it unwisely got involved in the assassination of Hamas leader
Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.
Interpol issued
"Red Notices" (wanted notices)
in the hunt for the assassination team.
Disgraceful.
Shame on Interpol.
The amorality of FIFA:
Switzerland's
Sepp Blatter,
President of FIFA, laughs at the oppression of gays in Qatar, 13 Dec 2010.
He thinks it is just a joke.
He has obviously never spent 5 seconds thinking about the lack of human rights in Qatar
when planning to disgracefully hold the World Cup there.
And search.
The
Community of Democracies
shows something of what a reformed UN
might look like.
A UN that actually had moral authority.
Though it still included in its
1st conference
Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh,
Egypt, Haiti, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait,
Morocco, Nigeria, Qatar,
Russia, Tunisia and Yemen.
So, even though it is better than the UN,
I still would not respect this body's decisions on any matter.
At the
2nd conference
some of the unfree countries are reduced to "Observers".
Participants still include
Bahrain, Bangladesh,
Indonesia, Jordan,
Morocco, Nigeria
and Russia.
Better, but still not good enough.
A reformed UN that I could support
would simply demand that countries
have a Freedom House
rating of "Free" to get voting rights.
You Wish to Fight Terrorism? Join the
Alliance of Western and Democratic States (AWADS)
by Raphael Israeli,
proposes a UN of free, democratic countries.
"This system may sidetrack the
chaotic situation in the UN today, where politics and
shifting majorities, composed of dictatorships for the
most part, determine the moral and other standards of
behaviour in the world body."
Claudia Rosett's dream UN resolution, Aug 2006.
"The Security Council,
...
Calls for the free nations of the world to bring together a robust, international force
with the express aim of removing, as swiftly as possible,
and by whatever means necessary, the terrorist-sponsoring regimes in Tehran and Damascus,
...
Suggesting that this Coalition be prepared, after dealing with the Middle East,
to proceed to North Korea,
...
Adds that the course of action outlined above, along with easing the threat to Western Europe,
the U.S. and even such unhelpful governments as those now in Moscow and Beijing,
would then allow a better focus on such terror-breeding regimes as Saudi Arabia,
and greatly clear the way for healthy development, better lives, and freedom from thuggery,
fear and war in places ranging from Sudan to the rest of Africa and parts of Latin America,
all now suffering from the spread of the fascist ideologies mentioned above"
The idea of some kind of "United Nations",
that would act to stop genocides
such as
Rwanda
and
Ethiopia
where the great powers have no strategic interest,
is still attractive to both
(liberal internationalist) left and (neo-con) right.
The problem is the left's insistence that all the tyrants of the world
have to be included in such a body.
Here's the kind of interventionist trans-national body I could support:
The Genocide Prevention Corps (GPC).
Its aim would be to stop genocides in places
where great powers have no strategic interest
and where the genocide can be stopped with no great loss of life.
I propose the following:
The GPC would be made up of the leading democracies only.
The US, Canada, the EU, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea.
Only the countries that are actually opposed to genocide.
China and Russia would not be allowed to join.
And neither would the "non-aligned" third world countries.
They would only distort its votes, as they distort UN votes.
No country will have a veto. All they can do is pull out of a mission, not veto it
(e.g. France might pull out of the
Rwanda operation
because of its Hutu interests,
but it would not be able to veto).
Missions will be decided by majority vote among these democracies.
The GPC would: (a) not intervene when great powers were already involved,
and: (b) not intervene when stopping genocide could require a massive war
and massive loss of life.
It would not intervene in places like Israel or Iraq,
but also not in places like Iran, Taiwan or North Korea.
This may be sad, but one has to start somewhere.
Call it the "Easily-stoppable Genocide Prevention Corps" if you like,
the ancestor of a hoped-for future "All Genocide Prevention Corps",
which would actually require a "Tyranny Prevention Corps".
It can't solve all injustices. It can't depose all tyrants.
It can't take on strong governments.
It will just start with stopping easily-stoppable, large-scale genocide by weak governments,
such as
Rwanda
and
Sudan.
Again, this may be sad, but one has to start somewhere.
This project is do-able.
Whereas the "Tyranny Prevention Corps" is not do-able (yet).
The GPC won't nation-build. It will go in, kill the government, stop the genocide,
and leave.
Others (EU, UN) can peace-keep afterwards.
The GPC will be designed for killing and nothing else.
Its missions must be as small, short and do-able as possible.
Why? To keep member countries supporting such an altruistic project.
Look how America bailed out on altruism in Somalia
when it suffered a few dead.
The GPC would have to work extra hard to keep people on board.
So, no nation-building, no peace-keeping.
It would not have the broad agenda of general-purpose armies like the
EU Rapid Reaction Force.
Just the narrow agenda of genocide stopping. It's a start.
"Serial Regime Change"
- Tony Allwright's idea for how to depose tyrannies
without the bloody, costly, endless and unpopular
nation building afterwards
(as in Iraq and Afghanistan):
Go in, kill the government, leave.
If new government is the same: Go in, kill them, leave.
Repeat until they learn.
Not perfect. But it's a start.
"This is a rough and dirty scheme, intrinsically flawed - and no doubt "illegal".
And it will certainly not usher in the holy grail of democracy, at least not in the short term.
But, at minimum political, human and financial cost,
it will introduce the concept of accountability, international oversight
and limits to bad behaviour - a vast improvement on the present.
...
Change the regime - and keep changing it - until the leaders themselves stop the genocide,
as they surely will for the sake of their own survival. Call it serial regime-change."
The GPC would be strong enough to take on and destroy a small government,
such as that of
Rwanda
or
Sudan.
It will have serious air power and fire power.
It will have stealth planes, smart bombs and its own
dedicated aircraft carrier.
Unlike the
ad-hoc UN peacekeeping coalitions
that have to be organised for each crisis,
it
will be ready-to-go at all times,
already heavily-armed, with its own dedicated equipment.
Members will practice simulated genocide situations.
Having it all prepared and ready-to-go reduces the political cost of western leaders
agreeing to use it.
Having a majority vote reduces the political cost too.
There could be quite a motivation for young European men to join up.
Many people wanting to be soldiers in the West
grow up with ideas of being a hero,
fighting tyrants, and killing nazis with the good guys.
But if you are born in Ireland or Belgium, say,
you will probably get to do nothing other than some
UN peacekeeping.
Worthy, but hardly the
Liberation of Paris.
Joining the Genocide Prevention Corps would give young Western men
a chance to be involved
in some of the great missions of the age,
actually liberating countries,
and killing nazis like the
Interahamwe
and the
Janjaweed.
I could even imagine many young Western men having more interest in joining this
than joining their regular armies.
Yes it would be nice if we could address all war, all genocide, all tyranny
and all oppression. But the UN will obviously never do that.
And neither will the great powers.
So why not start by addressing the worst things that can be solved,
and take it from there.
Setting up the Genocide Prevention Corps
would be a do-able, practical step towards a future "Tyranny Prevention Corps".
We have to start somewhere.
Could the
(liberal internationalist) left and (neo-con) right
unite to support it?
Why not?
Organisation of the Islamic Conference,
a collection of unelected Islamic strongmen, oppressors, and fanatic sharia enforcers.
Headquarters is in the sharia tyranny of Saudi Arabia.
Any sentence that begins "The OIC calls for .." is not a sentence that any free man
should be interested in.
Pandering To The Islamic Conference, Claudia Rosett, 18 Feb 2010.
"The OIC .. is dedicated in its documents to spreading Islamic law, or sharia.
...
The OIC has been a big backer of a campaign at the UN for "anti-blasphemy" rules that would effectively gag free speech and muffle any real debate about the nature and direction of Islam."
Rashad Hussain
is Obama's "special envoy"
to the OIC.
(Shame on Obama for having an envoy to this group.)
When appointing him, Obama noted that he had memorized the Qur'an,
as if that was something admirable rather than disturbing.
In
June 2010, Rashad Hussain described Obama as America's "Educator-in-Chief" on Islam.
In one creepy phrase he sums up everything that is wrong with the Obama administration
- the view that the average American is stupid,
the view that Obama has some higher intelligence,
the patronising leftie arrogance,
the claim that the Cairo speech
was some great breakthrough rather than a cowardly pc evasion,
the view that Americans need to change,
the view that if we knew more about Islam we would like it more rather than less,
and so on.
All packed into one phrase that would make your skin crawl.
Well done, Rashad Hussain!
He also apparently said that Obama would collaborate with the OIC
in their UN effort to criminalize criticism of Islam:
"The OIC and the Obama administration will work together in the UN on the issue of defamation of religion, especially in Europe".
I find it hard to believe Obama would be that evil.
I would like to see the original transcript.
If it is online,
tell me here.
The tyrants club, the
African Union
(formerly the Organization of African Unity)
- another UN in miniature.
List of Chairmen of the African Union (and the Organization of African Unity)
includes a fantastic collection of unelected dictators and genocidal thugs, including the following:
The dictator Nasser
of Egypt, who tried in 1967 to bring about a second Holocaust,
was Chairman of the OAU 1964-65.
The genocidal monster
Idi Amin
of Uganda
was Chairman of the OAU 1975-76.
The genocidal monster
Mengistu
of Ethiopia
was Chairman of the OAU
1983-84.
Egyptian dictator
Mubarak
was Chairman of the OAU
1989-90 and 1993-94.
The murderous thug
Mugabe
of Zimbabwe
was Chairman of the OAU
1997-98.
Libyan dictator Gaddafi was
Chairman of the African Union 2009-10.
Anybody who is interested in the African Union's opinions on any matter needs their head examined.
Africa rewards Bashir despite Darfur
- The 2005 summit of the African Union
will, unbelievably,
be held in the Islamofascist genocide-state of
Sudan.
The fact that Sudan
is the biggest killer, torturer and enslaver of Africans
on earth does not seem to bother the African Union.
The African author of the above editorial says:
"It is striking that much of the pressure on the Sudanese government
has been coming from the United States and Britain."
Why is it striking?
The United States and Britain have long demonstrated that they care more
about the suffering of Arabs and Africans
than Arabs and Africans do.
List of heads of the Non-Aligned Movement.
The anti-west Non-Aligned Movement
has been headed by a variety of thugs,
unelected dictators, mass murderers,
racists
and anti-semites,
including the following:
The democidal dictator
Tito
was head of the Non-Aligned Movement
1961-64.
The unelected dictator
Nasser of Egypt,
who tried in 1967 to bring about a second Holocaust
to kill all the Jews of Israel,
was head of the Non-Aligned Movement
1964-70.
The mass murderer and unelected dictator
Castro
was head of the Non-Aligned Movement
1979-83
and 2006-08.
The democidal dictator
Mugabe
was head of the Non-Aligned Movement
1986-89.
The mass murderer and unelected dictator
Suharto
was head of the Non-Aligned Movement
1992-95.
The anti-Jewish fanatic Mahathir Mohamad
was head of the Non-Aligned Movement
2003.
Egyptian dictator
Mubarak
was head of the Non-Aligned Movement
2009-11.
Anybody who is interested in the Non-Aligned Movement's opinions on any matter needs their head examined.
Mahathir Mohamad is the founder of various anti-Western "peace" organisations:
Perdana.
As at Nov 2009 their front page attacks Israel (over Gaza) and the UK (over Iraq). That's it.
No complaints at all about the
raging world-wide jihad.
This organisation obviously has nothing to contribute to world peace.
Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War.
As at Nov 2009 their front page attacks Israel, the UK and the US. That's it. Nothing about the jihad.
Nothing about
sharia in Malaysia either,
for what it's worth.
Get your own house in order first, I would say.
This organisation obviously has nothing to contribute to world peace.
Target-rich environment
- At the summit of the
Non-Aligned Movement, Cuba, 2006,
are the tyrants and thugs of
Iran, North Korea,
Zimbabwe, Belarus, Algeria, Cuba and Venezuela.
Architects of human misery.
Shame on the leaders of India and South Africa
for attending this vile carnival of tyrants.
In contrast to the above organisations,
every single member
of the EU has a
Freedom House
rating of "Free".
In domestic policy, these are some of the best countries on the planet.
Their foreign policy is not so good, though,
since it is often driven by destructive ideas
(resentment of America,
and hopes of regaining lost European power)
rather than by positive ideas
such as bringing freedom to the rest of the world.
I have mixed feelings about the EU.
I generally think European unification
has gone too far and needs to be rolled back.
I am very supportive of free trade and movement.
But the Euro
seems like an error
- driven by political desires
rather than whether it is good for the economy.
The EU now treats the Euro as sacred
and something that must be "saved"
no matter what the cost,
rather than treating it
as a mere tool, where if it is good for the economy keep it,
and if it is bad for the economy
don't keep it.
I am from Ireland, but
I would never identify myself as a "European".
I am a member of the West.
That is my identity.
It is highly artificial to ask me to identify primarily
with continental Europe.
The EU is good as far as it goes.
The EU should be about
free trade and free movement of people.
I don't want to see a federal Europe, or a European foreign policy.
The next step for me rather
is to expand the free trade/movement zone to
all of the West.
Have America join,
as a counterbalance to continental Europe.
New threats for old,
Margaret Thatcher, 1996,
calls for a
"Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Area"
to cement the West under American leadership.
Poll, Sept 2010: Britain would vote by 47 percent to 33 percent to leave the EU.
And yet UK parties do not reflect this.
Only 2.5 percent of MPs are declared opponents of EU membership.
UK poll, July 2011.
The UK would vote by 50 to 33 per cent to leave the EU.
Irish poll, May 2011.
23 per cent of Irish want to leave the EU.
20 per cent say Ireland should leave the euro zone.
There is much less Euroscepticism
in Ireland than in the UK,
but again Irish parties do not reflect the Euroscepticism that is there.
Catherine Ashton
is the EU's unelected and unaccountable "Foreign Minister".
Well I didn't vote for her.
Oh, I forgot, no one votes for the EU Foreign Minister, the EU President,
or anyone else on the
EU Commission.
Catherine Ashton has in fact never stood for election in her life.
Many people in the EU are under the delusion
that it is the EU that has stopped European
countries going to war against each other again,
after the bloodbaths of WW1 and WW2.
This is not true.
It is simply that every country is a democracy.
Democracies do not go to war against each other.
The EU is not, and never was, needed.
The behaviour of France and Germany
during the Iraq crisis of 2003 has
achieved the impossible.
They have turned me off the EU.
I have always been pro-EU.
It has been brilliant for Ireland
not just economically but also socially.
But I never had any idea it was meant to be an
anti-American movement.
This changes everything.
If the EU is anti-American,
then I want the EU destroyed.
Old Europe's support for
the fascists of
Iraq against the heroes of Britain and America
France bristles in a U.S. world
by David Frum.
France and Germany are the centre of the attempted
European "alternative" to American leadership of the free world.
Let's hope this "alternative" never gets off the ground.
The Europe and the America we want
by Ralf Dahrendorf and the liberal Timothy Garton Ash
-
"Europe needs renewal. But this cannot be accomplished by attempting the
self-determination of Europe as the un-America, even the anti-America. Every attempt at
defining Europe as against America will not unite Europe but divide it. This is what the Iraq
crisis has shown."
Old Europe (France, Germany and Russia)
v. New Europe (basically, everyone else - who, oddly enough, have reasons
not to totally trust Paris, Berlin and Moscow)
New Europe -
Our Coalition:
More than 50 countries have joined forces against Saddam
by Condoleezza Rice,
on America's real allies.
"Months ago, the prime minister of Estonia
told President Bush that he did not need an explanation
of the need to confront Iraq. Because the great democracies
failed to act in the 1930s,
his people lived in slavery for 50 years."
Boston or Berlin?,
as we say in Ireland.
How can anybody in their right mind choose Berlin?
France, Russia and Germany were not "anti-war".
Let's call a spade a spade.
They were allies of Saddam.
Vive le Checkbook:
How France bankrolls America's enemies
by Michael Gonzalez
- "'Follow the money' is an old adage, and it means that economic interest
will eventually explain much human behavior. That France
opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein because he owed
millions to French banks is proof of this."
- France is also the no.1 lender to Iran, Cuba and Sudan.
Germany is the no.1 lender to North Korea, Syria and Libya.
How France Blocked U.S. In Ankara
by Michael Ledeen
- France and Germany
went out of their way to sabotage the American military effort
in a time of war.
The war lasted longer,
and more American troops died because of them.
"A quarter
of Americans now see France as an enemy
- not an ally or even a neutral - and the number is growing."
"I won't even speak of a sense of gratitude
[for France's liberation by America in WW2]
because that is an emotion almost as archaic to the contemporary
European mind as patriotism. Nearly 30 percent of all Frenchmen
polled last year wished Saddam to defeat the United States in Iraq."
Introduction
- "Before the terrorist attacks of 2001, 77 percent of Americans held a favorable opinion
of France and a mere 17 percent held an unfavorable one. In March 2003,
on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, these feelings were reversed.
Only 34 percent of Americans saw France in a positive light,
while fully 64 percent viewed it negatively."
On the build-up to the Iraq War:
"France's entire foreign policy seemed driven by belligerence toward the United States."
Jonah Goldberg sums up my scepticism of European superiority -
"Europe is the historic birthplace of Western civilization,
and therefore the world shall always owe it gratitude and respect.
But Europe is not the future."
And John O'Sullivan expresses my view that America should get closer
to Europe instead of abandoning it -
"It is therefore clearly in America's national interest
to shape a new Atlantic framework in which the E.U. would gradually
lose its dominance within Europe."
Europe and the Establishment,
John O'Sullivan,
says America should adopt a policy
of trying to prevent closer European union,
saying it is inevitable that
"the more united Europe becomes, the more anti-American
it will be".
I agree, but America has to help us pro-Americans in Europe.
O'Sullivan has some ideas, including
"a transatlantic
free trade area".
NATO, like the EU, is basically a collection of democracies.
NATO's domestic record is slightly worse than that of the EU.
Every member of NATO
has a
Freedom House
rating of "Free",
except Turkey, which is "Partly Free".
But
NATO's foreign policy is more sensible than that of the EU.
The EU's foreign policy can be driven by
destructive ideas
about rivalling America
and regaining lost European glory.
But NATO - with the US and Canada as members
- is not interested in these destructive ideas.
I am very supportive of NATO.
It has the potential to grow into the kind of
organisation of the world's democracies
that the UN can never be.
NATO roughly
represents the free countries of the world.
NATO has a noble history of opposing tyranny
and defending freedom.
NATO has moral authority.
The UN does not.
Some countries
(notably France and Germany)
have betrayed NATO recently,
and betrayed the US that protected them for so many years.
But other countries in Europe
demonstrate that
the West still exists,
and NATO is the organisation that best approximates the idea
of the West - the free countries of the world.
And France and Germany now have new governments.
NATO should be expanded into
a new organisation
of the
world's fighting democracies,
including Australia, Japan, South Korea, Israel, and perhaps
some others.
And perhaps expel Turkey.
My own country, Ireland, remains outside NATO,
and has never taken an active role in defending the west.
Historically, Britain and America have defended it
while it contributes nothing.
30 per cent
of the population are now opposed to this neutrality.
Let's hope it comes to an end soon.
shows that the group
includes:
Since 1995.
