"In a sane world, the UN would be expelling Iran from the UN..." – Robert Spencer
In a sane -- and well-ordered -- world, with government by the well-prepared, those in positions of power in the West would have long ago understood that while the Soviet bloc does not exist, and the Western bloc does not exist, one bloc does exist: the bloc of Islam. While, in the case of Iran's nuclear project, it may be possible to divide that bloc -- that is, to get the Sunni Arab states to mute their opposition to any anti-Iran resolutions as long as they can continue to push their "we need to disarm Israel in order to disarm Iran" nonsense, on every other issue there is solidarity of almost all the Muslim states.
And of course, the idea that "we need to disarm Israel in order to disarm Iran" is the kind of thing that outside the offices of the Arab League only someone like Lt. Gen. William Odom (ret'd.) would dare to suggest and allow himself to believe that the obvious deep malevolence of such a suggestion would not be recognized. (About Lt. Gen. William Odom, ret.d, see here.) A few may not feel as strongly as do the Muslim Arabs, but they mimic at the U.N. the hierarchy within supposedly "universalist" Islam -- that is, the hierarchy by which Arabs lord it over non-Arab Muslims, and expect to be obeyed. And they are obeyed, all too often, by all too many.
For the past forty years there has been a steady rise in the power of what has been called here the Islamintern International, which is today far better financed and focused than the Comintern ever was. Its personnel dominate the U.N., and affect not just the U.N. on the East River, but the different committees of the U.N., such as the one that is supposedly devoted to human rights that meets in Geneva. Member of the Islamintern International have risen high in the Secretariat of the U.N. They blackball some non-Muslims, and are careful to hire or promote others whose views they find accommodating -- such as the sinister though also comical Edward Mortimer, “Chief Speech Writer" and Head of the Office of Communications and self-described "Senior Adviser" to Kofi Annan, a man who was dazzled by the Ayatollah Khomeini (see another article, "A Tribute to Edward Mortimer," at this site). They outnumber and outmaneuver the Europeans, the Asians, and the black Africans. Look at how Arab Muslims have stoutly defended and protected the government of Sudan, fending off for so long -- for twenty years now -- any criticism of the genocidal campaign responsible for 1.8 million black African deaths in the southern Sudan, and managing, after an additional 400,000 black Africans were killed in Darfur, to still prevent any effective U.N. action.
The workings of the U.N. are morally unacceptable. It is a corrupt and corrupting organization. It should be mocked and belittled at every turn. And it should be seen for exactly what it is: something that started out with high hopes, and with intelligent representatives of the advanced world in charge. It became something different, over time, to end up, as it now has, as a semi-succursale of the Arab League.
It is absurd to put faith, or waste much time, on an organization that is mostly in the hands of the very people, or perhaps it is fairer to say has its hands always tied by the very people, who are the carriers of the menace of Jihad. For any informed observer knows by now that that Jihad involves a worldwide and world-without-end campaign to make the whole world a place, slowly but surely, where Islam dominates everywhere, and everywhere, ultimately, Muslims rule. It seems to be a fantastic goal, as fantastic as that of Adolf Hitler, or of what some of the more enthusiastic Soviet Communists thought might be possible. But it is not the likelihood of the goal that matters.
In the case of such threats, it is not so much the arrival, but the horrifying journey, that matters.
And upon that journey we are all now embarked, whether we realize it or not.
Hugh: " They outnumber and outmaneuver the Europeans, the Asians, and the black Africans. Look at how Arab Muslims have stoutly defended and protected the government of Sudan, fending off for so long -- for twenty years now -- any criticism of the genocidal campaign responsible for 1.8 million black African deaths in the southern Sudan, and managing, after an additional 400,000 black Africans were killed in Darfur, to still prevent any effective U.N. action."
You are 100 % correct. I can't believe the world has been duped into taking no action in Sudan.
Where is the moral outrage from this genocide?
The U.N needs strong western leaders who have the courage and conviction to challenge the Arab wheels that control the U.N.
Bring back John Bolton to the U.N.
"Duped" is a generous descriptor. It assumes that there was original interest, inclination, and intent toward a course of action that was cleverly stalled or reversed. That wool was pulled over collective innocent eyes.
Who doesn't know the facts of the Sudanese genocide? Whose perspective has changed?
I wish this were even as evocative as to produce a hearty "be warm and be filled", yet doing nothing as though passing the street beggar unsure if he's sleeping or dead. Or as morally invigorating as the oft reported New Yorker stepping around the obviously dying mugging victim without offering aid, or even a 911 call. But it's somewhere in between.
We feel a moral tug to do something, but can't motivate our will. Select leaders, and even some of our hapless celebrities, call attention to our inaction, as though that in itself were moral courage. But still nothing happens.
It's a sick show on both sides of the Atlantic. The facts are:
1) We don't see Sudan as having or producing anything we need.
2) We don't value life as much as we ought.
3) We are afraid our involvement will result in the great Arabic oil teat being pulled from our suckling mouths.
And I really hope it is not because
4) They are black.
5) They look sweaty and primitive.
6) We do see the Sudanese government as being useful and have already cut a backroom deal.
From Jonathan:
"The U.N needs strong western leaders who have the courage and conviction to challenge the Arab wheels that control the U.N."
First the West needs strong leaders. We do not have any. Not a one that we have now would challenge the "Islamintern International" (Hugh - great name for this collection of thugs!).
We need to start thinking of "litmus tests" for the presidential candidates. We have to find out just what they know about Islam and where they will take the country in the face of Islamic terror. Are they going to call it a war on terror or a war on Islam? Are they going to reign in Saudi and Gulf states control of mosques and imams and their general subversion of the West? Are they going to demand laws from Congress that do away with pro-Islamic organizations? Are they going to fight Islamic subversion in the government and get the Muslims out? Are they going to start profiling for Muslim terrorists? Are they going to increase the armed forces for the job at hand? Are they going to defend our borders? Are they going to send the UN packing?
Those a just a few ideas. I know there are plenty more.
We need Eisenhowers, Churchills, George Pattons and Chesty Pullers, and yes we need John Bolton, who is of the same mold.
And we need the same litmus tests for all future congressional elections. We cannot afford to have Dhimmi-wimps in power any more.
Hugh,
it's tough to generalize from one data point.
But you can start seeing trends with multiple data points.
It's true that the West has been supine about Darfur in Sudan.
But it's also true that the West was supine about Rwanda and Biafra. In fact, recently declassified documents have proven that President Clinton knew that Rwanda was true genocide but covered it up.
And, way back there in 1936, the West was supine about Italy's invasion of Abyssinia (Ethiopia) too.
That's FOUR data points.
And there's one factor that connects all the dots.
The people being slaughtered are black Africans.
And nobody in the West wants to go to war to save black Africans. Not ever.
Well that is the second comment that has suggested that the reason people looked the other way is because they are blacks. Every non-black government just does not care about blacks being slaughtered because they are black. Bill Clinton, who has been called "Americas first Black President" is a racist I guess. George Bush senior, whose personal charity is the NAACP, is a racist. George Bush the younger, who has appointed more minorities and blacks to office than anyone else, and who meets with people like Al Sharpton at the drop of a hat, is a racist. The supreme court that allows reverse discrimination in school admissions is racist. The US government who has poured millions upon millions into African aid is racist. And on and on.
It is true that very few countries want to get involved in Africas multitude of problems (the likes of which make islam look like girlscouts) and the Darfur slaughter is appaling and MUST be stopped! But it is mainly money that motivates involvement in Africa. GREED. Not racism.
I quote myself:
" The UN has become one gargantuan carcass that even the CANNIBALS of Noida would recoil from licking "
/ Anger off.
The U.N. sets the tone for corruptness. The puppet masters pulling the strings there for personal gain is reprehensible. May justice find them.
Don't get me started on all of the dots, from Darfur to the murder of South African farmers.
/Anger off indeed.
Guess what? The situation in Sudan, and in particular in Darfur, has aroused the Left-Liberal guilt
Well, of course, it is Bush's fault
http://eureferendum2.blogspot.com/2007/03/well-of-course-it-is-bushs-fault.html
William Odum
Third, the U.S. must informally cooperate with Iran in areas of shared interests. Nothing else could so improve our position in the Middle East. The price for success will include dropping U.S. resistance to Iran's nuclear weapons program. This will be as distasteful for U.S. leaders as cutting and running, but it is no less essential. That's because we do share vital common interests with Iran. We both want to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban (Iran hates both). We both want stability in Iraq (Iran will have influence over the Shiite Iraqi south regardless of what we do, but neither Washington nor Tehran want chaos). And we can help each other when it comes to oil: Iran needs our technology to produce more oil, and we simply need more oil.
Accepting Iran's nuclear weapons is a small price to pay for the likely benefits. Moreover, its nuclear program will proceed whether we like it or not. Accepting it might well soften Iran's support for Hezbollah, and it will definitely undercut Russia's pernicious influence with Tehran.
Fourth, real progress must be made on the Palestinian issue as a foundation for Middle East peace. The invasion of Iraq and the U.S. tilt toward Israel have dangerously reduced Washington's power to broker peace or to guarantee Israel's security. We now need Europe's help. And good relations with Iran would help dramatically.
No strategy can succeed without these components. We must cut and run tactically in order to succeed strategically. The United States needs to restore its reputation so that its capacity to lead constructively will cost us less.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-odom31oct31,0,6123563.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
DP111, Bush lied people died. Isn't that the chant from the Left? Is there anything else we can blame Bush for? And didn't Bush secretly give the orders for blowing up the dams in New Orleans?
I also love it how all of the Hollywood Libs have just discovered Darfur. Their false piety is sickening.
I haven't read all of this but it may help those who see Bush behind every tree wearing a ninja suit:
http://www.ifaanet.org/ifaapr/ethnicity_inversion.htm
Lt. Gen. William Odom may appear to agree with me about Iraq -- but there is a great difference. He wants the Americans to leave Iraq in order to then go on to appease the world of Islam. He has suggested that the "only" way to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is to make sure Israel is forced to commit suicide by giving up its weapons. This is transparent. His viciousness is dealt with in "A Tribute to Lt. Gen. William Odom (ret'd)" that is somewhere in the archives.
The fact that he wants American troops out, but also wants to achieve a nice happy healthy stable Iraq (fat chance) doesn't worry me. He's wrong. There is no chance that Iraq will become stable, unified, and so on. Not a chance. The Shi'a will never give what the Sunnis demand, the Sunnis will never acquiesce in their loss of power. Even if temporarily there is some seeming accommodation over the distribution of oil revenues -- which is unlikely, with the Americans rushing about trying to end the unseemly squabbling, and discovering that the "oil law" is merely one more occasion for furious squabbling, and for scores either settled or merely put off for settling later.
No doubt all kinds of people whom one has reason to distrust think the Americans should leave Iraq, but don't look at that. Look at what else they want, look at their motives, look at their flawed analyses.
When the Americans leave Iraq, it will be a triumph for the Western world, and a catastrophe for the Islamic world. That is true no matter when it happens, but it would be far better that it have happened in the first months of 2004, or any time since. It should be happening right now,and no one should be apologetic for agitating for such a withdrawal. It is the only course that makes sense if you do not share Bush's enthusiasm for bringing "freedom" and toys and good things to eat to the boys and girls in Iraq, but wish only for the Camp of Islam to be as divided, demoralized, and as a result, weakened, as possible.