This entire obsession with so-called (alleged) torture (let's be real about this) at Gitmo is a reflection of a much reclined, soft, self-absorbed, wealthy peoples who have way too much time on their hands and not enough real life experience and encounters with not-so-nice people to know what torture is. (And doesn't it really come down to what "is" is?)
In America, you can be slapped and slandered with sexual harassment charges if you put your hand on the shoulder of a female/male employee or merely touch their arm. Most likely, there's nothing sexual or harassing about it, but NO TOUCHING ALLOWED (let's not EVEN broach the subject of "verbal abuse/harassment"). Now, does that reflect the "truth" of the matter-- real harassment? Likely not. But that's where we are now. A standard in which all degrees become a baseline zero sum.
UN STANDARD
Same is true with the "United" Nations as though the standard of morality, fairness, legality, humanity and so forth emanates from this hallowed body.
Sure... Few words for ya: Rwanda, Zimbabwe, China (Tibet), Haiti, Liberia, Sudan, Pakistan, Israel (Palestine), Congo, East Timor, Iraq and on and on and on. Does the US want these countries to determine a moral "standard" that all should follow and should the US be obliged to adhere?
The UN serves a purpose, but let's get serious about what that purpose is and how ineffective they really are as a world "body" in matters that require a serious approach, action and follow-through, not a bunch of hollow threats in the form of strongly worded memos, declarations and "resolutions" that don't "resolve" anything.
It's so much easier to point the finger at good ol' USA for a number of reasons:
1: We're an easy, soft target and have tremendous achievers-guilt/shame PLUS we think we're better than everyone and therefore should be held to different standards than the dictators and fascists that make up a healthy % of the world bodyFixating on America is like fixating on celebrity. It's shallow and superficial and accomplishes nothing, especially when there are much more important issues at hand. America has its problems, no doubt. But putting so much focus on America's shortcomings shortchanges those countries and the people therein that really need some attention and action paid to them.
2: If the US obliges the UN body, which it often does, it reflects well on the UN--they feel powerful and effective--they've slapped down the Giant, it seems like they're actually accomplishing something and worth the $billions poured into the UN each year
3: No repercussions for criticizing the US; the US wants the love, needs the approval (the US a country of sycophants)
4: Focus on the easy trumped-up issues; making them the central problem diverts attention from really dire situations that require fast, efficient action and results (Congo, Rwanda, Sudan)
2 comments:
Yeah- we should follow the example set forth by the UN...Right!!! the UN has gone above and beyond to stay neutral and to enter crisis zones as "OBSERVERS" knowing full well that not taking a stand against evil allies you with evil. America and to a larger extent Isreal take most of the criticism that the UN will announce in public - why? because they can do so in relative safty knowing that when they go home their families will not have been slaughtered for their comments or that no one would dare put a bomb under there favorite booth at thier favorite deli. Many a comment has the UN made agianst those whom provide them the sanctuary to operate and yet THEY will not even call the genocide in Rwanda a genocide...OH wait, they were in Rwanda at the time...thats why??? they may have been acountable for their statments!!! In my opinion the entire UN should be mobile, that is the entire directoriate should drop in and setup shop in any given crisis areas around the world. How long do you think the situation in the Sudan would have gone on if Kofi could'nt get his latte' in safe manner? they need to be part of the situation to help the situation, not making decisions from a secure building in NY. But that is not the UN way, they send in the Observers with instructions not to make waves, tell me what kind of a sociopath are you if your job is to observe genocide? i understand the UN's quest to be a stabilizing force in world affairs, as we all know tyranny is the most stable form government known to the modern world.
Yeah- we should follow the example set forth by the UN...Right!!! the UN has gone above and beyond to stay neutral and to enter crisis zones as "OBSERVERS" knowing full well that not taking a stand against evil allies you with evil. America and to a larger extent Isreal take most of the criticism that the UN will announce in public - why? because they can do so in relative safty knowing that when they go home their families will not have been slaughtered for their comments or that no one would dare put a bomb under there favorite booth at thier favorite deli. Many a comment has the UN made agianst those whom provide them the sanctuary to operate and yet THEY will not even call the genocide in Rwanda a genocide...OH wait, they were in Rwanda at the time...thats why??? they may have been acountable for their statments!!! In my opinion the entire UN should be mobile, that is the entire directoriate should drop in and setup shop in any given crisis areas around the world. How long do you think the situation in the Sudan would have gone on if Kofi could'nt get his latte' in safe manner? they need to be part of the situation to help the situation, not making decisions from a secure building in NY. But that is not the UN way, they send in the Observers with instructions not to make waves, tell me what kind of a sociopath are you if your job is to observe genocide? i understand the UN's quest to be a stabilizing force in world affairs, as we all know tyranny is the most stable form government known to the modern world.
Post a Comment