Groan

It's getting to the point where putting up stories like this one almost isn't worth it.

Children as young as six are being sexually abused by peacekeepers and aid workers, says a leading UK charity.

Children in post-conflict areas are being abused by the very people drafted into such zones to help look after them, says Save the Children.

The most shocking aspect of this abuse is that most of it goes unreported and unpunished, a new report argues, with children too scared to speak out.

The UN has said it welcomes the report, which it will study closely.

A 13-year-old girl described to the BBC how 10 UN peacekeepers gang-raped her in a field near her Ivory Coast home, and left her bleeding, trembling and vomiting on the ground.

No action has been taken against the soldiers.

Has there been a UN "peacekeeping" mission that didn't involve NATO where things went right? How many more tales of rape, drug running, and child prostitution are we going to be forced to listen to?

And some people STILL think the UN has "moral authority". Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

More AID to Palestinians = More Terror from Palestinians

MereRhetoric has the charts to illustrate that

More Aid To Palestinians Means More Murders A Year Later

Every time aid increases, homicides increase. Every time it decreases, homicides decrease. There's a not uncompelling theory about how cultures degenerate into corruption and depravity when they have to rely on outsiders to literally feed and clothe them. That explains some of what's going on, but it isn't enough to explain such a strong and consistent correlation.

A lot of the correlation is probably accounted for by the simple fact that all humanitarian assistance is de facto security assistance. More US and EU money for schools and hospitals means that the Palestinians can shift their Saudi and Iranian money towards guns and ammo. Which may help explain why Palestinians are able to kill more people every time they get aid, and why they're forced to kill less people every time it's taken away...

Cross Posted at DANEgerus

How useless is the UN?

Well, when the 42nd Street Aimless Debate and Chowder Society can't even be bothered to actually blame Sudan for their actions in Darfur.....

The U.N. Human Rights Council expressed concern over the situation in Darfur on Friday, but stopped short of criticizing Sudan's government.

The compromise resolution passed by consensus without a vote after Germany agreed to remove any mention of holding Khartoum responsible for the "armed attacks on civilian population and humanitarian workers, widespread destruction of villages, and continued and widespread violence."

Look, when this group can't even call a spade a spade, what use is it? The UN is worse than worthless, it is an IMPEDIMENT to world peace. I can't even muster up the anger to list all the faults of that group of ticks, leeches, worms, and other assorted parasites.

Nothing good can ever come out of that group. Nothing. Plain and simple. It needs to be destroyed and the ground it sits on razed flat.

Oh Dear Lord....

Why does every stereotype, and I mean EVERY stereotype of the Democrats American Communist Party turn out to be true?

Today, in H.R. 1, Democrats will bring legislation to the House floor supporting the transfer of responsibility for a critical national security program to the United Nations. House Republicans will offer a motion to block it.

(emphasis mine)

So, you mean all those times I called the Dimocrats a group of communist cocksuckers who would turn this country over to the UN in a heartbeat... I wasn't just using hyperbole?

Crap, we're all screwed. They really are that weak and spineless.

Only in America

Can a communist clusterfuck dictator and an insane Islamonazi dickhead come together and get a round of applause from other petty kleptocrats, theocrats, thugs and other scum, all paid for by YOUR TAX DOLLARS.

Ain't the UN great? Where else can people get together and work to oppose the USA in every action in a building supplied by the USA? On American soil?

Again, I reiterate my previous statements. Ensure that key UN personnel are in the UN Building. Then bar the damn doors and demolish that fucking cesspool. There's enough filth in America as it is. We don't need foriegn filth as well.

Day-um!

How many dictators can Koffi fellate in one day? DANEgerus has them listed. Go take a look. Tell me again why the hell we allow the UN in this country? You all know my prefered method to get rid of them: lock the doors and bulldoze the place with every worthless dictator and theocrat inside.

I'm not alone in that, either.

Oh, by the way; DANE also has a roundup of the "peaceful" ISM posing with terrorists. Yep, nothing says "peace" like posing with the Al Aqsa Maryrs Brigade holding AK-47s, ya know? Worthless idiots. Actually, to the Islamonazi's they're "useful idiots". Hell, they're just plain idiots. Too bad more of them don't sit down in front of an armored Cat D6 bulldozer like their hero, St. Rachel Corrie of the Holy Pancake.

And yes, I question their patriotism. Because they engage in Anti-American activities every chance they get. I'm sorry, but burning American flags, calling America a facist country and calling for America's destruction is anti-American. It's not "dissent" at that point. Personally, if I had my way I would take pictures of these anti-American assholes in the palestinian occupied areas and prevent them from re-entering America. Piss on em. They're worthless cretins and I don't want them polluting my country. Let them stay with the terrorists. Enjoy your martyrdom, you pricks!

But that's just me.

I'd like to be surprised....

Really, I would. But I'm not.

IDF forces from the Golani Brigade blasted open a Hizbullah bunker overnight Saturday some 400 meters from the security fence near Rosh Hanikra, it was reported on Sunday. The bunker was discovered a mere stone's throw from a UN post.

According to Lt.-Col. Jassem Elian, a senior officer in the Golani Brigade, "Hizbullah dug a 40-meter by two-kilometer pit, in which they built dozens of outposts."

Elian added that the bunker had "shooting positions of poured concrete," and that the combat posts inside were equipped with phone lines, showers, toilets, air ducts, and emergency exits, as well as logistical paraphernalia for Hizbullah.

Note my emphasis. Tell me, did UNIFIL happen to be away for a day while Hizbullah POURED CONCRETE FIGHTING POSITIONS????

Is there any reason what so ever to keep this farce with the UN running? Nope.

Piling on the Left

Over the past few weeks, there has been more damning evidence come out against the Left and what it proclaims to stand for than I can count. Hell, half the time I feel like I'm on information overload. "What? They did WHAT? How? When? Crap, they did it again! Didn't they learn the first time?"

This just adds to that pile.

The Swedish Foreign Ministry was delegated to investigate who knew what about corruption in the U.N.'s oil-for-food program in Iraq. The report has now been made public by a Swedish radio station. It says that Ole Kolby, Norway's U.N. ambassador at the time and head of the sanctions committee, knew about the program's corruption but "remained quiet for fear of angering Iraq and big companies involved in the program."

In short, they knew there was some backdoor hankey-pankey going on with Saddam and several countries, but the didn't let anyone know what they knew for fear of upsetting people.

Huh? Gosh, for people who claim to care about the rule of law (I mean, this is the group that was screeching about "International Law" for months leading up to the invasion of Iraq) they really play fast and loose with the facts when it suits their politics, don't they?

This is reminiscent of the recent admission by Kevin Drum, a rather prominent liberal, especially on the web, that he refrains from writing about the threat posed by Iran because doing so would help the Bush administration. One wonders how much of the "reality" reported in the news is influenced by the determination of both politicians and journalists not to mention the facts that tend to support the reasonableness of, and necessity for, the Bush administration's policies.

Um, yep. At this point, nothing that comes out of the Left should be taken as the truth until it's been double, triple, and quadruple checked by at least three people. They can't be trusted to tell the truth at all until it suits their politics, and most of the time you can't even trust them then.

Also, Mr. Volokh comments on the decline of Amnesty International. (Via Instapundit)

"[In a report accusing Israel of war crimes, Amnesty International] accused Israel of applying an overly broad interpretation of what constituted a military objective when it attacked power plants, bridges, main roads, seaports and Beirut's international airport, all of which are 'presumed to be civilian.'"

"Presumed to be civilian". Tell me, are the terrorists also "presumed to be civilian" since they don't wear uniforms and operate out of civilian centers? Volokh comments thusly:

I'm no military expert, but every book, movie, documentary, etc., I've ever seen on war assumes that at least bridges [how many WWII movies have a scene focused on taking a bridge?], roads and seaports are important military targets, and in modern times I'd have to put airports on that list, too. The idea that a country at war can't attack the enemy's resupply routes (at least until it has direct evidence that there is a particular military shipment arriving) has nothing to do with human rights or war crimes, and a lot to do with a pacifist attitude that seeks to make war, regardless of the justification for it or the restraint in prosecuting it [at least if it's a Western country doing it], an international "crime."

Bridges, roads, seaports and airports, when used to resupply an attacking force, no longer are "civilian". By their very use, they have become military targets. Much like using a hospital, school or religious building as a base of military operations allows the destruction of those buildings under the Geneva Convention, when you use an object for military purposes you make it a military target. This is basic level, privates-learn-this-in-basic-training kind of stuff. The fact that an agency supposedly devoted to protecting civilians can't even bother to read the damn Geneva Conventions and learn what is and is not permitted speaks volumes about that agency.

But then, I'll give a shit about world opinion when they focus on holding terrorists accountable more than they focus on condemning Israel.

SSDD

That's Same S**t, Different Day.

U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown may want to stick to reforming his own office and stop criticizing member states, a State Department spokesman said Wednesday.

Malloch Brown was quoted in a British newspaper Wednesday suggesting that he does not think that Hezbollah, the Syrian- and Iranian-backed group currently fighting Israeli Defense Forces, is a terrorist organization.

"It's not helpful to couch this war in the language of international terrorism. Hezbollah employs terrorist tactics; it is an organization, however, whose roots historically are completely separate and different from Al Qaeda," he said, according to a transcript of an interview.

And he wonders why most of America regards the U.N. much as they would regard a malignant tumor? Tell me, just what would make Mr. Brown call Hezbullah a terrorist organization? I mean, beyond the using civilians as human shields, beyond the daily rocket fire into civilian areas of Israel, beyond the calls for Israel's destruction, just what in the name of all that is holy would make Mr. Brown call Hezbullah a terrorist group?

My sweet God, what an asshat. My opinion of the U.N. drops with every passing day.

No, I haven't disappeared

I've been recharging the batteries, doing work on the bike, (DAMN, but those parts are expensive!) and just taking a few days for myself. The g/f and I are heading out tomorrow for the Anacortes Oyster Run, which means I had to use up some vacation. But it'll be worth it.

But anyways, the news that ticked me off. The US is saying that the UN will have a larger role in reconstructing Iraq. My only question is "WHY?" The France and Germany led UN, filled with thugs and dictators, didn't do a DAMN THING for Iraq when Saddam ruled it with an iron fist. And lets not forget that it was the UN who allowed, through either their corruption or plain incompetance, Saddam's oil-for-food scheme which resulted in people starving while Saddam piled up US $100 bills. HALF A BILLION DOLLARS WORTH. The only role the UN should be playing is either a footmat for the new Iraqi government to wipe their feet on, or an ATM machine for the rest of us who actually did something about Saddam. If you want gross incompetance, negligence, corruption, brutality, mass murder, genocide, and appeasement, just let the UN run a country. Hey, it's worked great for Bosnia, hasn't it? There STILL isn't a self-supporting Bosnia yet, and the UN has been running that place for HOW MANY YEARS?! Allowing the UN to "play a larger role" is translated into "Allowing the UN to run a country for their own gain, while making the population more and more dependant on the UN, and forcing the USA to foot the bill for the entire thing." Why don't we skip the part where the UN wrecks that country, hmmmmm? If the USA had taken control of Bosnia, instead of playing the part of UN enforcers, we might not have troops still stationed there! Piss on the UN. I wouldn't trust them to wipe their own ass properly, much less rebuild a country.

And since I still have more saved up, I want one of those barking moonbats to answer a question. Just how do you think an organisation made up of thugs, dictators, and theocracies can properly rebuild a democratic system of government? A good HALF of the countries in the UN don't allow democracy in their own damn country! Why should we trust them in Iraq? Do you really think Iran wants a democracy right next to it? Why are we giving these criminals a chance to screw things up?

As far as I'm concerned, we can round up the UN, put them all into that pretty little building of theirs on the Hudson river, and implode it. The world would thank us later, trust me.

On the home front, Rep. Janklow has pleaded not guilty to manslaughter. I got news for you, Janklow. Your drunk ass plowed your Caddilac into a motorcycle. Your drunk ass killed a man. YOU ARE GUILTY! And if I had my way, the family of that man should be able to attach battery cables to your shriveled little nutsack and watch you twitch for the next twenty years. You don't deserve to be in Congress, you deserve to be in jail. The people of South Dakota deserve someone better than a murdering lush to represent them, so go to hell. Go directly to hell, do not pass "Go", do not collect $200, your ass should belong to Bubbah right about now.

Or maybe I can put it this way: Janklow's decision to drive drunk caused a man to die. That man's family is going through hell right now. This wasn't a death that you could expect or prepare yourself for. Those are painfull enough. But to lose a member of your family, your son or your husband or your father, is like taking a sledgehammer to the chest. To lose him because some drunken fuckwit rammed a Caddy into him is even worse. What do you say when a little girl asks "Why did daddy die, Mommy?"

It's time for Janklow to twitch. Killing him is too merciful. Is that harsh? It is? Good. Because it's nothing compared to what that family is going through right now.

And last but not least, critics of the GOP are saying that the 'publicans haven't been forcefull enough. Gee, ya think? Allowing not one, not two, but THREE fully qualified judges to be fillibustered? Hell, Estrada had the backing of every judge in the country, but that wasn't good enough for the Donks, because he was a *gasp* conservative! Not only does this highlight the hipocricy inherant in the Donks, ("Yes, we support diversity, but only when those brown-skins stay on our plantation like they're supposed to!"), but it allowed the Donks to wrest a bit more control away from the Republicans. There should have been a damn vote. Make those fucking sacks of slime actually stand up a filibuster. I know that Teddy "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy has a big mouth, but I want to see him go two hours without a drink before I accept his little fillibuster. Make the bastards back it up. Because they CAN'T! But it never came to that, because the Republicans folded like a house of cards. They needed to show some backbone, and failed. So we now have to live with the choices of socialists, parasites, and communists because our elected officials didn't do their damn jobs.

Hell, lets just nuke Washington and start over. The Republicans aren't the party of the Right anymore, they're the party of "Lets be friends!" And that won't get this country anywhere but down.

US or UN?

That's what Arnold Kling would like to ask the presidential candidates.

Do you believe that the rifts within the United Nations indicate moral obtuseness on the part of (a) the United States or (b) other members of the UN?

I think the ideolgocial lines could be split right down with that question.

Today, a consumer of news media could be forgiven for thinking that the United Nations passed a completely different resolution than what actually was passed prior to the war. You might think that the decision of whether or not to go to war was conditional on whether a complete and accurate description of Iraqi programs of weapons of mass destruction was supplied by the United States and Great Britain.

In fact, the critical resolution required Iraq to provide a complete and accurate account. They failed to comply. Other members of the UN, in their moral wisdom, said, "Never mind."

......

I am not Karl Rove. I want to see a vibrant democracy in this country. I would like to see the differences between my libertarian persuasion and neoconservatism contested. I can imagine an election where I weigh the answers to a number of questions when I make my choice. I can see two parties competing for my vote.

But the UN party is not one of them.

Yep.

Found via AlphaPatriot.

UN Delenda Est

This has been all over the web today, but I just had to add my two cents.

The hipocritical, dictator controlled, incompetant, parasite infested group of lackys, turncoats, bootliickers, terrorists and racists known as the UN is about to get rid of a stash of machine guns.

That's right, folks. The UN, which as deemed us little people as not being worth to own guns, had a stash of MP-5s for Mr. Kofi Annan, who felt the need for some firepower while driving around NYC.

And I love this:

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which regulates the sale and purchase of the MP5s, originally denied the United Nations permission to purchase the guns.
......
The United Nations, aided by senior officials in the Clinton administration, persuaded the ATF to grant permission. In February 2002, the Bush administration ordered a review of the U.N. security officers' use of the weapons.

Would that be the GFW Clinton? Why, yes it would!

There's just too much irony, hipocricy, and plain foulness involved in this story to fisk it properly. Didn't someone want to move the UN to Canada? I'll join Kim du Toit in paying for a moving van. Get the hell off of our land, you slimey worthless scum!

NGO - Notoriously Greedy Offal

Yet another reason for the US to tell the UN to insert a running chainsaw into their nether regions...

It’’s not all monotonous or pointless in Kabul; at one French NGO housed in a stunning antique-laden chalet, I’’ve devoured a seven-course meal prepared by a 4 star chef. Then there’’s always the sumptuous UN House, where one can take a dip, mingle poolside among scandalous bikinis and dowse dehydration with inspired cocktails fashioned by our languid Euro masters. Unfortunately, since "American UN employee" is an oxymoron, our one attempt to storm the formidable barricades is a spectacular failure. We’’re rudely turned away, despite flashing $20 bills to the Afghan UN security. My companion, a fierce Pushtoon-American licensed to pack a very visible Glock 19, glances back at the sunbathers as we’’re escorted out: ““We’’ve paid for all this with our taxes, you bastards!”” One of the Pushto guard’’s shrugs his shoulderssympathetically, muttering an apology that suggests ““someday this will all be ours again.”” For all the heroic American efforts in Afghanistan, truly and deeply appreciated by the indigenous population, we’’re still treated as unwanted nuisances by the predominantly European NGO residents.

And there's more here (not as infuriating) and there's a wonderfull quote from here:

The BBC is a true world service; that is, there is not a region of the planet where the BBC is without a fierce opinion about how things are and should be. The British may have been drummed unceremoniously out of Afghanistan and the colonies in other centuries, but they are returned with a vengeance and an attitude no less condescending or patronizing

The UN shows with every passing day that it is nothing but a powerhungry pack of dicators and thugs, a collection of autocrats and money-grubbing parasites. In short, they disgust me. No wonder France is in love with that group. They get to throw their weight around, suck money off of successful countries, and attempt to make themselves relevant to the rest of the world!

Kick them out and reclaim that space on the Hudson, I say!