Comments on: Totalitarianism at the U.N.

By: vivo

vivo — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 06:14:22 +0000

31. Gordon Chang:

“vivo, not even scientists can help us with this one. I vote for people with common sense.”

That’s exactly what I meant. A system that could be extracted from people’s minds and reflect their common sense feelings and truth. Something like a lie detector but less elaborate, and as functional as a Blackberry.

Crazy? Everything is possible these days.

If found, you just have to convince the ACLU . . .

By: Chaz706

Chaz706 — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:27:22 +0000

Is this course of action extreme? Yes, and it could lead to our isolation. Critics will say we are “shooting ourselves in the foot,” and they will undoubtedly be correct. Nonetheless, sometimes nations have to stand by their fundamental values whatever the cost, and now is one of those critical moments. After all, attacks against the notions that underpin Western society are real and gaining strength and legitimacy. So, we should not, at this time and perhaps never, participate in any organization that undermines us. The U.N. is a great idea, but the First Amendment is an even better one.

Sometimes a city on a hill must stand alone.

By: Gordon Chang

Gordon Chang — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:28:18 +0000

David W. Lincoln, I think the reason is that most everyone believes that, through engagement, we can change autocrats. This is the byproduct of end-of-history theories that we already won.

I agree with you–we should help more worthy nations instead.

By: Gordon Chang

Gordon Chang — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:25:35 +0000

Peter the Bubblehead, thanks. I learn a lot from those who comment.

By: David W. Lincoln

David W. Lincoln — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:30:03 +0000

Why are those countries which receive a passing
grade from freedom house continuing to squander time and money to prop up those who want to drag
down those countries to their level, instead of
accepting a hand up to the level of these countries which deserve to command respect.

By: Peter the Bubblehead

Peter the Bubblehead — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:29:55 +0000

Hey Gordon,
I just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to respond to the comments posted on this thread.

It’s nice to know the commentators actually care what their audience think and suggest.
~Peter

By: Gordon Chang

Gordon Chang — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:47:51 +0000

Michael, you wrote: “As long as most of the world suffers under these thugs there is no way to fix the UN.” That’s probably right. The world is not the way we would like it to be, and the ultimate issue is whether the U.N helps or hurts our attempts to maintain the international system. So far, the U.N. is not so bad that it is intolerable, but it’s getting very close.

By: Gordon Chang

Gordon Chang — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:44:50 +0000

vivo, not even scientists can help us with this one. I vote for people with common sense.

By: Gordon Chang

Gordon Chang — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:43:42 +0000

Lynn B, the U.S. needs to reduce its contributions no matter what happens with Durban II or the anti-blasphemy resolution. Thanks for highlighting the disproportionality issue.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:56:10 +0000

The UN is full of dictatorships run by individuals or small groups who’s only intent is to enrich themselves and their cronies. So in the UN they work at enriching themselves and their cronies. All other accomplishments are either necessary to further their abilty to maintain their own power or are purely accidental.

As long as most of the world suffers under these thugs there is no way to fix the UN.

All the good the UN does around the world could be done 10 times better by charities. The UN beauracracy is largely made up of men from these dictatorships who are intent on enriching themselves. On top of that most of the UN is managerially challanged and what is actually maked for relief is frittered away in beauracratic inefficiency.