Day by Day

Monday, May 08, 2006

Well, according to the UN

Those little tramps were asking for it. I mean, they were just DYING to get their hands on some cash!

Aid workers and U.N. peacekeepers are trading food for sex with young girls in Liberian camps housing those left homeless by years of war, an aid group said Monday.

Save the Children, which surveyed nearly 160 children and about 170 adults who were either living in camps or had recently returned home, said they were repeatedly told of girls having sex with older men in exchange for money, food and other goods.

The accused included peacekeeping troops, aid workers and other powerful men in the community. The report did not give the nationality of the aid workers or peacekeepers involved. About 17,000 U.N. peacekeepers are based in Liberia.


Why is it that whenever the UN sends "peacekeepers" who aren't part of NATO forces, you hear about child sex camps, pedophilia, rape, drug running, and all manner of illegal shit?

I mean, it couldn't be because the UN is a group of worthless dictatorial fuckwits, could it?

MORE: And distressingly familiar.

Here's the lesson of the past three years: The UN kills.

In 2003, you'll recall, the US was reviled as a unilateralist cowboy because it and its coalition of the poodles waged an illegal war unauthorised by the UN against a sovereign state run by a thug regime that was no threat to anyone apart from selected ethnocultural groups within its borders, which it killed in large numbers (Kurds and Shia).

Well, Washington learned its lesson. Faced with another thug regime that's no threat to anyone apart from selected ethnocultural groups within its borders which it kills in large numbers (African Muslims and southern Christians), the unilateralist cowboy decided to go by the book. No unlawful actions here. Instead, meetings at the UN. Consultations with allies. Possible referral to the Security Council.

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."

Several hundred thousand corpses later Clooney is now demanding a "stronger multinational force to protect the civilians of Darfur".


It doesn't matter how many times the evidence is presented to the Left, they still believe that a corrupt group of thugs, dictators, communists, theocrats and self-appointed "leaders" can help the world more than those nasty, brutish, goose-stepping stormtroopers in US military uniforms. And they're consistently proven wrong, but they never learn the lesson. From kiddy sex-rings, genocide that goes unstopped, drug and weapons-running, the UN does it all. Except help anyone. That would be almost "unilateral".

So who, in the end, does "multinational action" boil down to? The same small group of nations responsible for almost any meaningful global action, from Sierra Leone to Iraq to Afghanistan to the tsunami-devastated Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia and on to East Timor and the Solomon Islands. The same core of English-speaking countries, technically multinational but distressingly unicultural and unilingual and indeed, given that most of them share the same head of state, uniregal. The US, Britain, Australia and Canada (back in the game in Afghanistan) certainly attract other partners, from the gallant Poles to the Kingdom of Tonga.

But, whatever international law has to say on the subject, the only effective intervention around the world comes from ad hoc coalitions of the willing led by the doughty musketeers of the Anglosphere. Right now who's on the ground dragging the reluctant Sudanese through their negotiations with the African Union? America's Deputy Secretary of State Bob Zoellick and Britain's International Development Secretary Hilary Benn. Sorry, George, that's as "multinational" as it's gonna get.

Clooney made an interesting point a few weeks ago. He said that "liberal" had become a dirty word in America and he'd like to change that. Fair enough. But you're never going to do so as long as your squeamishness about the projection of American power outweighs your do-gooder instincts.


If the Left would stop hating this country and what it stands for long enough to realize that good can come out of US military intervention, we could have possibly stopped the genocide in Rwanda and Darfur in it's tracks. But sending troops to a country raises shrieks from the Left like howler monkeys disturbed from their rest by a clear-cutting team of loggers in Panama.

What's the quintessential leftist cause? It's the one you see on a gazillion bumper stickers: Free Tibet. Every college in the US has a Free Tibet society: There's the Indiana University Students for a Free Tibet, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Students for a Free Tibet, and the Students for a Free Tibet University of Michigan Chapter. Everyone's for a free Tibet, but no one's for freeing Tibet. Idealism asinertia is the hallmark of the movement.


Boldface is mine, because I think Steyn hits the nail on the head. Hard. The Left is wonderful about promoting their causes, and Tibet is one of the longest lasting causes they've ever taken up. So what do you think would happen if the US, Britain, Australia and India went into Tibet and finally kicked the ChiComs out once and for all?

The same riots, protests, and claims of imperialism that we've seen for the past five years would happen all over again. Arab street? Hell, the Progressive street would ignite in howls of rage. There would be marches in Seattle, protests in NCY, and riots in San Francisco. Despite all their calls for action, the Left will never authorize action from the US military, because unless military action is undertaken with UN approval, then it's somehow illegitimate. Which is the biggest crock of shit I've ever seen, and it simply proves that the Left, despite all it's claims, is simply unwilling to do what has to be done in order to carry out it's supposed goals. They're hypocrites, spineless jellyfish demanding action and not wanting the action to happen. They want the world to be all rainbows and fluffy bunnies, and then shriek like children when it rains or people breed rabbits in non-PETA approved cages. They use catchy slogans and causes to help them feel good about themselves and allow themselves to sleep at night, but when the rubber hits the road they step on the brakes. They want world peace, and yet oppose removing the people who would bomb the world flat. They claim to want to end the genocide happening in Africa, and yet absolutely will not accept the US military being sent to stop the genocide. Because when you've self-indoctrinated yourself to believe that the US military is the root of all evil, controlled by the evil Bushiter and his oil baron buddies, you simply cannot accept that our troops have done more good for the world than all the UN resolutions combined.

So long as the Left continues to put their blind faith in a corrupt organization controlled by dictators and thugs, instead of in the countries that have actually, ya know, prevented genocide from happening when they've been allowed to, we will continue to see dead bodies piled up. And no amount of posturing or hot air from the likes of George Clooney is going to change that. Stop genocide in Darfur? Gladly, if you would only get out of the way.

I don't see that happening any time soon.

No comments: