Bush Tries to Save United Nations From Irrelevance

I have long pointed out the utter worthlessness that the United Nations represents. I cannot state one thing that the United Nations has actually done that justifies the incredible amount of taxpayer money to sustain it. I cannot point to one thing the United Nations has done to deserve a modicum of respect from the world body. The most kind word I can think of to describe the UN is "joke". They are anti-American and anti-Israel. They waste much of their time and energy trying to get their hands into the back pocket of the United States scaring the world with the Global Warming farce. Leaders use the platform for their own selfish benefits for their interests.

President Bush's speech to the United Nations contains similar sentiment. He recognizes that with all of the money, people and resources this body could actually rise to the occasion and address some important world problems. George Bush states:

"This great institution must work for great purposes: to free people from tyranny and violence, hunger and diseases, illiteracy and ignorance and poverty and despair. Every member of the United Nations must join in this mission of liberation," he said.

Bush states examples of tyranny around the world that the UN could join together to fight: Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Darfur, Belarus, North Korea, Syria, Iran, and Venezuela.

Of course with all of these countries representing serious human rights violations, in supreme irony there were about 700 protesters outside chanting against Bush and Cheney and critics pointing to Guantanamo Bay. I have noted before that the treatment of Gitmo at most could be considered uncomfortable and not torture. The fact is that even if critics had a valid point about Gitmo, we would be comparing how the US treats its enemies to how these other countries treat their citizens.

Bush is correct in his challenge to the United Nations to look for worthy causes to target. The question is whether the UN will continue to waste itself on frivolity, or if it will actually take the steps necessary to become relevant.

They Want to Have Their Agenda and Their Credibility Too

Since bloggers cannot possibly write about everything or even many things, each blogger has a niche that he or she focuses on to write about. As long as transparency is kept in the process this should be acceptable. Consistency lends credibility, but due to time constraints full balanced blogging is not feasible. So most bloggers focus on their desired niche and clearly post they are doing so. This blog is no exception.

However, there are many organizations that either claim or give the appearance to be non-partisan and have the resources to cover a broad range of activities. Many of these organizations have targeted the disgusting but localized actions Abu Graibh. They have also have made great hay about the Gitmo prisoners by taking the word of the detainees above those of the guards. Many are media outlets that claim to be non-biased. Others are organizations allegedly devoted to fighting human rights abuses.

I have been looking at several of these for any mention about the Iranian hostage situation and found very little. First, our new House Speaker Nancy “the Stumbler” Pelosi appears to have “frozen” at the last minute and did not follow the Senate in passing a resolution denouncing it. One news story quotes Pelosi as wanting to make sure she was doing “more good than harm”. Since when has this concern ever stopped her before?

While I have seen the story mentioned in the news, there is very little showing Iran in a bad light. In the face of evidence that the sailors were clearly in Iraqi waters, this action amounts to an act of war. The retaining of the sailors after the evidence was submitted is no less than making the sailors hostages. The parading of the hostages on television is against the Geneva Convention and an act of humiliation. They have added to the humiliation by forcing the female sailor from a modernized liberated country to wear an Islamic head covering. To top things off they are showing so-called “confessions” by the sailors. No military person would volunteer to do such a thing without being under some kind of duress.

The sorry-excuse United Nations fell short of a full condemnation against Iran. Is anybody surprised? Then there are the organizations supposedly devoted to ridding the world of human rights violations. I have been monitoring the websites of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International for several days now. If there is any mention of the abuses against the UK sailors I could not find it.

Basically it boils down to credibility. If an organization devoted to denouncing these violations turns a blind eye to clear abuses, how can anything they say be trusted. If they put on their site that they exclude any mention of Western civilization victims, then at least we would know why this situation was excluded. Instead there is a deafening silence and their agenda driven heart is laid bare for the world to see.