As I established in a comments on your previous post, M. Simon believes that Sergio Vieira de Mello, Nadia Younes, Renam Al-Farra, Ranillo Buenaventura, Arthur Helton, Rick Hooper, Jean-Selim Kanaan, Chris Klein-Beckman, Alya Souza, Martha Teas and Fiona Watson all deserved to die. In that case, there may be some justice. If not, there is none, poetic or otherwise.

Give it a rest. You screwed up and Joe made things worse with the selective quote. I agree with posters' comments that this subject is one to drop.

If there is an organization on earth that did more than the U.N. to see to it that Saddam Hussein stayed in power

Well, the US did help put Saddam in power:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aburish.html

There was a coup in Iraq in 1963. What do we know about the U.S. involvement in that coup? The U.S. involvement in the coup against Kassem in Iraq in 1963 was substantial. There is evidence that CIA agents were in touch with army officers who were involved in the coup. There is evidence that an electronic command center was set up in Kuwait to guide the forces who were fighting Kassem. There is evidence that they supplied the conspirators with lists of people who had to be eliminated immediately in order to ensure success. The relationship between the Americans and the Ba'ath Party at that moment in time was very close indeed. And that continued for some time after the coup. And there was an exchange of information between the two sides. For example it was one of the first times that the United States was able to get certain models of Mig fighters and certain tanks made in the Soviet Union. That was the bribe. That was what the Ba'ath had to offer the United States in return for their help in eliminating Kassem.

And the US did make sure that Saddam stayed in power after Gulf War 1.

Fine,

I won't say another word on the subject.

I hope that the other members of the blog will do likewise. This is too good a thing to screw up. I sound like my mom. Scary.

Well at least I got mentioned in the first comment.

Saddam only get in power in 78 so from 63 to 78 thats a long shot

"As the press has told us consistently, Islamic terror organizations would never cooperate with or fight for Saddam."

and

usually they say in same phrase that US supported Bin Laden in Afghanistan and dont notice any contradiction in it...

Shows the utter historical ignorance in media
they just needed to remember 2WWar

1939 : Nazi + Soviets allied to split Poland

1941 Western + Soviets allied to defeat Nazis

We allied to a regime that slaughtered millions but at that time it was the least of evils...

Here is a bit of UN humor I posted over at Sgt. Stryker. Enjoy. And go read the rest.

Just remember the UN advertising slogan: The UN, the best friend mass murderers ever had. We can provide money and diplomatic cover to dictators in need. Just call. Syria will answer the phone and Cuba can help with human rights problems. One stop shopping for tyrants everywhere. They deserve your support. So support the UN.

The UN can also provide special services for those dictators in need of internal cover. Our anti-Jew hate fests of which Durbin was a prime example are especially popular. Just give us a call.

Here is some more UN humor:

Just because the SS are a bunch of hate filled mass murdering anti-Semetic scum doesn't mean they don't deserve your support. Just think of them as a bad PR version of the UN and you will feel much better.

You see the SS were never really bad people. But like the UN they have been misunderstood.

Do you see now why cheering the deaths of SS members is a bad thing? It would be like cheering the deaths of UN functionaries. And we all know how wrong that is. After all they are all people and must each and every one be treated with the respect they have earned by their works.

In fact if you look at all this the correct way Kurt Waldheim was maligned. There is no reason to think that because he was a Nazi and head of the UN that there was any connection. Not that there was anything wrong with being a Nazi. I think the training the Nazis got fitted them well for important UN posts. Don't you? Jew hatred and mass murder work well in either system.

It is a comfort knowing that there is a UN. Now that the Nazis are gone. I mean even mass murderers and their supporters are people. They deserve a place to work so their families don't go hungry. I mean we can't judge people just by the work they do now can we?

If the UN is complicit in so many deaths...

And the US supports the UN with both money, people, time and a work environment...

Is the US complicit as well?

If the UN deserved a terrorist attack, then did the US deserve a terrorist attack?

CBK

The West in general liked and supported Saddam at the beginning, probably France more than the others, but pretty much everyone did. Why? Because he was viewed as a "western" kinda guy, not a religious nut case.

But I think the French did more than the UN, all along.

It's not quite right to say that the US made sure Saddam stayed in power at the end of the Gulf War. We thought/hoped that the Kurds and Shi'ites would do it for us, so we wouldn't have even more blood on our hands. And so, as usual, we ended up with even more, because the massacres of the Kurds and Shi'ites are on our account.

Finally, there's no longer any excuse for people to say that secular regimes and jihadists can't work together, just as it's wrong to say that Sunnis and Shi'ites don't work closely against the infidels and crusaders, especially if they're Jews...

cbk,

Depends on whether US policy supports UN actions or not. The US veto is excellent as defence against the fascists of the UN BTW.

I think Iraq will answer the question quite easily. Did the UN support Saddam. Yes. Did the US. No. Are the Iraqi people concious of being free from a mass murdering tyrant. Yes. Are they well disposed to the UN's support of Saddam? No.

I think the Iraq case is obvious.

Other cases might not be so clear cut, but the general trend is for the US to be in opposition to much of the UN agenda. I know the US was not happy with the Nazi Waldheim and he was generally persona non grata in the US. Restricted to New York for UN functions and otherwise unwelcome.

So this disgust with the UN is not a recent phenomenon in America. We were none to happy with the Zionism = racism resolution and worked for years to get it repealed.

========================================
The below quotes from:

*Waldheim and the UN*

Former UN Secretary General Kurt Waldheim has been on a watch list of unwanted people since 1987 — when Justice Department probers found he "assisted or participated" in Nazi deportations and the executions of Jews and soldiers in the Balkans during World War II.

But that hasn't stopped the world body from larding the ex-Wehrmacht intelligence officer with an annual pension of $124,754 — which he receives in Vienna and can expect to collect every year until the day he dies, the Daily News has learned.

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))

"The awful fact that he still receives a UN pension speaks to the corruption of an institution that has abandoned the principles on which it was established," said former Sen. Daniel Moynihan (D-N.Y.), who served as U.S. representative to the UN from 1975-76. "Waldheim was a low point in UN history."

In 1986, the then-senator introduced a nonbinding rider to an anti-terrorism bill that would have defunded Waldheim's pension by withholding U.S. contributions to it.

Some more good quotes:

In other words, the assembly voted Waldheim a series of pension-allowance raises — even as evidence surfaced of his alleged role in the mass deportations of Greek and Yugoslav Jews to Nazi death camps, and in the execution of Allied prisoners, in 1942-45.

In a report dated April 9, 1987, the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations concluded that, in the last three years of the war, "Lt. Kurt Waldheim assisted or otherwise participated in the persecution of persons because of race, religion, national origin or political opinion."

The UN has been an official suppoter of mass murderers for a very long time. The US has opposed this stance consistiently if not effectively.

I might add that the Zionism = racism resolution that Kofi Annan says was a low point of UN actions was passed during Waldheim's tenure.

Go figure.

Mr. Simon, please give it a rest. I think we're all trying to let this contremps die down, and you're not helping.

A.L.

I agree with Michael Ledeen. For most of the '80's Hussein was the lesser of three evils in the region. Afghanistan was embroiled in a war with the Soviets and Iran was ruled by a virulent anti-American theocracy. I think we had a visceral fear of the spread of the Afghan War along with the spread of Islamic fundamentalism and saw secular Iraq as a bulwark against it. The Iran Iraq War and the Afghan War kept the fundamentalists fairly bust through much of the '80's and only their endings brought about the worldwide specter of Islamic terrorism. Until that time it was confined to the middle east. The Libyan bombing of the German disco in 1986 may mark this change, along with the Achille Lauro hijacking.

As for the UN it really becomes a joke, when a country, especially a security council member, acts in what it believes are its self interests. France and Russia had long been Saddam's enablers and there was very little the UN could do; even if it had been inclined to do anything. There were two very different philosophies at work in Iraq. The US saw it as a hedge against militant Islam and the French saw it as an opportunity to make money.

The answer I believe lies in Iran. We need to begin to help dissidents in Iran to subvert the government there. If it collapses on its on, good. If not we need to give it a push. The time for that push is now. A diversion in Iran would also greatly impede the terrorist flow into Iraq. It would reduce the funding and scope of Hamas and other Palestinian terror organizations, and would leave Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the Palestinians as the last major obstacles to peace in the middle east. And I believe we would find a great many friends in Iran who would enthusiastically help us in crushing Islamic terrorism.

But as for the UN it is nothing more than a feel-good money rathole for us to contribute international welfare to people who would kill or convert every one of us if given the chance.

A.L. -- it's really a bitch being on the wrong end of the facts, isn't it? The pain just never stops. The 'Waldheim was in charge' fact during the Zionism=Racism fiasco was just the nail in the coffin.

Mr Katzman started this little bitch-slap of his fellow contributors -- why don't you take him to task for the results?

You rock, M. Simon. Keep up the good work.

Dear (and I say that in the nicest possible way) smilink:

When you find a clue, please send up a flare.

You have no idea how I feel about the UN; I haven't said anything about it. You do, on the other hand, know how I feel about terrorism and those - on either side of the political fence - who support it.

As I, and the rest of our readers, now know how you feel about it.

A.L.

For what it’s worth, let me commend Joe Katzman. Almost any of us who has ever been in charge of a place with a lot of people, a moderator, or, say, just for example, president of an apartment co-op, will understand how it was for Joe. Joe doesn’t get to opt out, let somebody else do it, find something else to occupy him for a few days to avoid unpleasantness, etc. Thanks for providing this Website, Joe, it shows homework, teamwork, & standards.

A.L.,

So you are against terrorism and it's supporters? Excellent. Me too!

That would make you against the UN.

Glad to have you on the team.

The recent bombing is so emblematic of what happens when you support terrorists. Sometimes terrorists turn their terror on their own supporters when it seems to be in their interests - no honor among thieves (See Hitler and the Night of the Long Knives).

So terrorists blew up a bunch of terrorist supporters? This is probably a bad thing. Please explain why. Because it will help me support Hamas. They do a lot of really good charitable work and like the UN support the families of Jewicide bombers. Commendable.

You all will please excuse my lack of compassion for an organization of terrorist supporters. Must be a moral defect. I'm working every day to overcome my lack of compassion. I've decided to start by trying to love Hamas. If I can get that one down the UN ought to be easier.

Simon

Hum. I've read through a lot of the comments on the issue, and I'm hard-pressed to come up with much of a conclusion.

The central points seem to be the nature/existence of collective guilt and whether retribution against the guilty must use just means to be an acceptable action.

Dealing with the second point first, I would argue that yes, just means are required for moral retribution against the guilty. In other words, truck bombings and other forms of terrorism are unacceptable ways of dealing with problems. Those who would not use such tactics should not applaud them...although I don't think Trent's posts go that far.

That's one of my sticking points, though. I don't think experiencing a sense of schadenfreude necessarily implies approving of the method of downfall your enemy experiences, but it is supposed to be linked to a sense of justice, and I think an examination of the facts may show that this attack accomplished unjust ends, as well as applying unjust means.

The concept of collective guilt is somewhat harder. M. Simon's analogies to the mob and other criminal enterprises is fairly spot-on in terms of the substance that the U.N. often accomplishes, but I think it avoids the point that the U.N. actually publicly asserts non-criminal ambitions (sometimes). Sergio Vieira de Mello sounds like someone who drank the kool-aid and then proceeded to accomplish as much good as he could within the system of international diplomacy. Is de Mello responsible for the often-vile actions taken by his organization? Does he retain complicity in actions that he has not directly participated in? Would seeking his downfall, even by legitimate means, be just? I'd lean towards no, but I think it's a hard question.

I hope we’re not slipping down the slope toward cheering a bombing of any & every UN headquarters, like say just for instance the one on the East River where my friends & I might wander over during lunch & where lots of New Yorkers work, guards, cafeteria staff, etc. Lots of other people, too, not all of them bad. And it’s a big building, & not built, so far as I know, like the WTC towers, floors slung in the shell. Instead of pancaking downward & filling the air for weeks with crematory dust, it might keel over, maybe into the East River, maybe onto the street & other buildings.

By the way, the "America Attacked 9 1 1" presentation has become difficult to access at its famous URL (http://www.politicsandprotest.org) but it available (in its newest version) at
*http://attacked911.tripod.com.* .
There’s a note by the presentation’s maker at
*http://attacked911.tripod.com/note.htm*
& list of mirror sites at
*http://www.powforum.org/wtc*
but some of the URLs don’t work, particularly those for the presentation’s original version. This may be found, however, at
*http://www.capecountysheriff.org/DOWNLOADS/911_Tribute* .
I like the original version because Enya’s song “Only Time” does not repeat seamlessly but instead clearly ends, then begins again, which has a kind of impact in letting you know that this moving presentation is about to continue through at least another whole playing of the song. I don’t know, it just seems better that way. I think the original is somewhat longer & I prefer that too. On the other hand, the newer versions include audio clips from that first day of our new world.

If the Enya song bothers you, there’s a version (according to the list of mirror sites) that I haven’t visited yet with “Adagio With Strings Music”:
*http://www.ushostnet.com/gulfwar/flash.htm*

To find still more sites, Google on:
"America Attacked 9 1 1"

It would be pretty ironic too if it happened while we were there, me with maybe that very “Only Time” song in my head, & we’re chatting about what a cesspool the UN is, stupid UN, Helen Thomas & Mary McGory visions of Nehru jackets & noble ideals & Khrushchev's shiny pate & thumping-prop shoe & the world's pretty little flags cracking in the wind, dwarfed beneath the futuristic UN tower soaring into the blue, the UN which should, as I post now & then, here & there, be subject to monthly open Congressional investigative hearings taking testimony on UN crimes, interference, manipulation, fraud, & abuse for all the world to see & hear & which would be a ongoing spectacle that I’d prefer.