The Belmont Club's Wretchard links to a Washington Post story on a United Nations request for those torturing, gulag-guarding, imperialist, occupying, Nazi-esque American troops to help out on one of their missions. From the WaPo story:
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan asked the United States this week to consider sending troops to Haiti to support a U.N. peacekeeping mission beset by mounting armed challenges to its authority, according to senior U.N. officials. ... He expressed hope that the United States would participate in a planned U.N. rapid reaction force, authorized by the Security Council earlier this month, that would have the firepower to intimidate armed gangs threatening the country's fragile political transition. Officials said that similar requests are being considered for other countries, including Canada and France. "We want scarier troops," one senior U.N. official said.
Annan told Rice that the Haitians "respect the U.S. military," according to a senior U.N. diplomat familiar with the closed-door meeting. Annan added that the United Nations may make a formal request for troops later, the diplomat said.
"Intimidate"? "Scarier troops"? Are we supposed to glower our enemies (or the UN's) into submission? Wretchard delivers the moral cowardice inherent in this request:
There are no suggestions by the Secretary General that the weapons carried the current Brazilian force are inoperative. So far as anyone can tell, their ordnance works just fine. So logically, what Kofi Annan really wants is someone, like the Americans, to relieve him of the onus of ordering someone to pull the trigger, though perhaps he hopes that the American reputation for 'scariness' will make that unnecessary
So we do the dirty work to make the world safe, while allowing international leaders to lambast us for using force...a perfect outcome for Koffi and crew. Only America's Iron Lady is not buying:
...{Condi} Rice provided Annan with no pledges of military support, officials said, but offered to help persuade France and Canada to contribute to the mission.
That's my girl. France and Canada, the two nations most exemplified by a policy of helplessness combined with hatred of those who stand and deliver, should be perfect for this multilateral peacekeeping mission. I wonder why Koffi isn't excited about having them on board? And why aren't these countires already there helping out militarily? Because they are:
...Unable to deliver, not because the peacekeeper's weapons are malfunctioning but because no one wants to take responsibility for using them. If America has any utility at all to transnational liberals it is as a garbage collector and checkwriter for all the dreams it peddles.
Wretchard sees where this leftist morality leads us:
...acquiescence to this cynical game of political correctness represents the greatest debasement of all. Not only is it cowardly and irresponsible, it allows polite society to evade, for however long it wishes, substantive debate on moral choices which should concern us all. A society which wants to wage war without seeming to shed blood is one which has no intention of confronting the ethical issues. Then we are blind in heart as we are in sight...
Read it all, here: http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2005/06/nowhere-man-2.html
and here: http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2005/06/nowhere-man.html
1 comment:
"If America has any utility at all to transnational liberals it is as a garbage collector and checkwriter for all the dreams it peddles." Well said,
Post a Comment