Fox guarding henhouse: Pakistan becomes chair of IAEA board

Please remind me, what is U.N. stands for? United Nuthead?

But Western powers did not oppose the nominee of a group of Middle East and South Asia member states at a meeting of the IAEA board on Monday, which approved the choice by acclamation, one diplomat who attended the closed-door session said."

No, of course not.
How, given the policy of the American government, could those "Western powers" possibly have demonstrated diffidence about the selection of Pakistan to head the UN's monitoring agency for the development of nuclear weapons?

After all, it was thanks to the extreme naivete, to a negligence that was more than criminal, by the Western powers, that allowed a Pakistani metallurgist named A. Q. Khan to work in Western -- Dutch and German -- nuclear laboratories and to steal a great many nuclear secrets, and then to go home, and with the enthusiastic cooperation of the ISI that is the strongest power in Pakistan, to develop what the Pakistanis call "the Islamic bomb," with billions of dollars that it was possible to divert to the purpose because of all the aid American taxpayers -- who really built "the Islamic bomb" -- were being forced to lavish on Pakistan, as they are forced to do so today.

And then there is Pakistan's role in offering, through A. Q. Khan, the most popular man in the country, who cannot be touched -- just as the most popular woaman is the "daughter of the nation" Aafia Siddiqui -- nuclear secrets to North Korea, to Iran, and even to Libya (and just possibly to Egypt too, but that is another matter). The full extent of the terrible damage done by A. Q. Khan and the malevolent Pakistanis has still not been revealed to the Western publics, and won't be because in the official narrative -- the narrative of the hopelessly confused, ill-prepared, naive, and often simply stupid people who are making policies based on the simple principle of ignoring the nature of Islam, and substituting for detailed knowledge wishing-and-hoping, which never works, because they lack the wit to figure out what, if we had policies that were realistic, that were baed on an understanding of the meaning, and the menace, of Islam, what kinds of things we could do -- there are so many -- to weaken the Camp of Islam and hence to manage the threat. Instead, they talk of "victories" without defining them or recognizing that the word is itself inappropriate, in what is, rather, a situation to be managed. Or they talk of "solutions" when there is, again, no "solution" to the Islamic belief that sooner or later Islam must everywhere dominate, and Muslims rule, everywhere. The case that comes immediately to mind is that of the "two-state-solution" prattle that the Israelis are supposed to take seriously (and some, alas, do), but in the end it is not Israel alone, but all Infidel natinon-states, whose obstacles to Muslim rule must be torn down, by whatever means prove most effective.

But this is not what the Obama Administration, or the Bush Administration before it, can allow itself even to begin to recognize, much less to thoroughly understand, and then to construct polices, domestic and foreign, based on that thorough understanding.

We appear, maddeningly, by people who are ill-prepared and show no signs of wishing to correct their ignorance, to have locked ourselves into a mad policy of "winning Muslim hearts and minds" in Afghanistan (as before in Iraq, where the cup of gratitude toward the American Infidels for spending two trillion dollars to make Iraq a better place just runneth over, n'est-ce pas?), dare to express some, any, a single teeny-weeny, doubt about the appropriateness of having Pakistan, malevolent and meretricious Pakistan, where the farce of "a vast majority of good Muslims" who are opposed to the "violent extremists" has been created in the minds, and by the minds, of American policymakers, whose limited understanding, whose laziness in failing to correct that limited understanding, and whose sentimentalism, too, prevents the creation of a coherent, intelligent, and far less costly policy of containing, and weakening from within, the Camp of Islam -- including Pakistan, one of the most unswervably fanatical of Muslim countries because unlike people in Iran, or in Indonesia, Pakistani Muslims are akin to the Muslim Arabs in having no non-Islamic civilization or identity to which to appeal.

We will go on, with the waste in Afghanistan, the squandering of men, money, materiel, morale, for a few more years. But perhaps, as Iraq reverts to type, more and more people will, from the failure of all the American hopes and dreams and schemes in that effort, begin to recognize what would constitute, if anything would constitute, a "victory" and start to read some of the articles written on that "victory" in Iraq, beginning in early 2004, when it was time to leave, time that is by leaving to achieve the only "victory" that might be said to result from the intervention in Iraq, against the Camp of Islam, that would ever be possible -- one achieved by removing Saddam Hussein, and allowing the sectarian and ethnic fissures to widen, in the certainty that this widening would also affect intra-Muslim relations in other Muslim lands. Thus the attempt by Iraqi Arabs to smash the independence dreams of the Kurds could be useful in heightening awareness, among non-Arab Muslims, of Islam as a permanent vehicle for Arab supremacism. And the refusal of the Sunni Arabs in Iraq to acquiesce in their loss of power, political and hence economic too, and the refusal of the Shi'a Arabs to give up any of this newly-acquired power, would have effects in Bahrain, Kuwait, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and among Shi'a and Sunni communities even in the West, reflecting the same tensions, and possibly even leading to internecine hostilities that the Infidels of the world should welcome.

The refusal to oppose Pakistan at the IAEA, however, does bring us to a point of such absurdity that it may, in fact, have a good effect. That is, the Western countries will no longer pay much attention to this organization, and more and more will concentrate on their own, NATO-based, attempts to prevent any more Muslim lands from acquiring nuclear weapons, or indeed other weapons of mass destruction. Islam can be contained, but it cannot be contained by any reliance on any group[ that is part of, or is connected to, the U.N. The U.N. has become, over the past four decades, an instrument used successfully only by the Arab-Muslim bloc. There is no coherent Soviet or Western bloc, as there was once, and the civilized and advanced countries are now well outnumbered by the others, who rely -- many of these countries being in effect Cargo Cults with flags -- on the advanced world, even as they keep up a steady drumbeat of resentment and exaggerated victimhood.

Perhaps this IAEA farce is good. "Eto dazhe horosho, shto poka nam plokho" was the old Soviet saying. It means: "It's even good that right now things are so bad."

Perhaps.

We'll see.

the UN used to lie quiet and people nevewr noticed whst the UN did behind the scenes.

Nobodsy ever wonders why as soon as a conflict of countries arises, the UN steps in ad "Peacekeepers," but the conflict continues and even escalates, and at the end the UN can't or rather, won't do anything to end the "conflict/war.

This sort of thing happened in Bosnia, then Kosovo, and then Sudan.

The wars there are still going on.

Now the U.S. Congress is handing over to the UN- on a silver platter - two things:

- Control over the Child Welware and children's education.
- Control of the beaches and coastline of the U.S.

Not to mention the stories that there are UN troops stationed here for some nefarious purpose.

WTF !?

The fact is that all the reps of the govs of the world are appointed by countries with corrupt leaders.
Nigeria, Niger, Egypt, Malyasia, Indonesia, Algeria (which can't even control their own radical islamic rebels- who kidnap their own islamic young girls .... you know the drill- itt's been happening for the last decades there)-

All of these conuntries in teh UN have no common interest with us, in fact, conflict with our Bill of Rights.

When one goes into a contract with another party, it's supposed to be for the benefit of both sides.

So, I ask, in what way is the UN of any use to us?

We seem to be evolving in our government, instead of going forward.

Our own government, the U.S. Congress, is handing us lock stock and barrel to this Body of scum, the UN.

I say, GET OUT OF THE UN WHILE WE STILL CAN !!

In case you haven;t noticed, our U.S. government has betrayed us completely, is NOT working for us!
You only have to look around and see the fiascos that have happened for the last few years, and see it.

There is the U.S. Federal Government vs We, The People holding on to the Bill of Rights.

"We seem to be evolving in our government, instead of going forward"

Sorry. I meant to say, "devolving in our government"

Oh, great. We might as well hand 'em all our nukes, and kiss our butts goodbye before the big planetary suicide.

Come on now......does this really surprise anybody? Their idiocy is exceeded only by their corruption. Alas, we pick 22%+ of tab.

To make it even better these morons are trying to figure out how they can get MORE power over member countries. How would you like to have a blue helmet at the door explaining why guns are evil......except of course for the ones him and his buddies are carrying!!