To Hell with sympathy

This is a great essay penned by Charles Krauthammer; I think this piece reflects the attitude of many Americans.

link:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...

How on earth did this end up in Time? Somebody must have been sick...

How on earth did this end up in Time? Somebody must have been sick...

Time and Newsweek both occasionally put in conservative columnists. However since the entire rest of the magazine is written by Democrats, it does stand out...

yeah we all hate America with a passion over here. Its in the European genes.
You know, just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn''t automatically mean he hates you. And if someone feels sympathy for you, it does not automatically mean he condones all your actions. But it seems reason is lost with this Krauthammer guy.

I''m not going to ascribe emotions to the statements of western Europeans. That being said there must be some reason why Saddam Hussein was defended more vehemently than the ""cowboy"" president of the US.

That being said there must be some reason why Saddam Hussein was defended more vehemently than the ""cowboy"" president of the US.

What was defended was the integrity and the meaning of the UN not Saddam Hussein. The UN means a lot to the Europeans. That is a difference.

"chrisg" wrote:

What was defended was the integrity and the meaning of the UN not Saddam Hussein. The UN means a lot to the Europeans. That is a difference.

Whereas here in the States many of us have come to the conclusion that the UN is a farce that does little but placate dictatorships and prove itself to be a failure again and again and again and again and yet again when it comes to the truly important things, such as life and death and human rights.

The UN is as corrupt, ineffective and susceptible to subornation as the U.S. Congress...if not more so, since at least Congressmen are elected by the people they supposedly represent.

Rantage, you make so much sense. In a world at times where everything seems so arse-backward.

I am sure that people of the liberal persuasion will claim that the US Government has supported the non-democratic regimes that have placed various representatives to represent them in the UN, so in essence, non-elected UN members which are placed into their position, are legitimate in the world community derived from the fact that the US and other Sovereign States recognize these rogue states as legitimate states.

I question this contention. Then again, I also question the legitimacy or usefulness of the UN.

That these states are recognised as legitimate in the world community based on the fact that other sovereign states recognise them as legitimate is perfectly logical, surely? The world community is made up of the different states after all, so it must be up to them to decide who''s legitimate or not. Or am I missing something here?

However, I would not be opposed to limiting a nation''s influence in the UN based on how they adhere to different criteria, such as human rights, democracy, etc. Also, if this were put into effect, I''d very much like to see loans granted to these nations declared null and void, on account of the leaders not representing the people, and as such the people really can''t be expected to carry the weight of the debts incurred.

Ok problem is, what if the government of the country values the life of a unborn child more than the mother and criminalizes abortion?

Does this country get rewarded for its human rights policy or does it get branded as a barbaric? Im sure you can think of many other gray areas.

Ok problem is, what if the government of the country values the life of a unborn child more than the mother and criminalizes abortion?

Wow - 30 years of brainwashing at work... So if abortion is illegal then the mother''s life is worthlessthan the child''s? Explain that one to me...

"Alien Love Gardener" wrote:

That these states are recognised as legitimate in the world community based on the fact that other sovereign states recognise them as legitimate is perfectly logical, surely?

All else being equal, I''d say that this makes sense.

But then you''ve got to consider that countries with oppressive regimes will recognize other non-threatening countries regardless of their human rights record (like Pakistan recognized Taliban-run Afghanistan). On the other side of the coin, you''ve got cases like Taiwan, a reasonably advanced country with a democratic government and elected leaders that isn''t even a UN member!

There is no set of checks-and-balances for the UN, and so the lunatics are running the asylum.

Ok problem is, what if the government of the country values the life of a unborn child more than the mother and criminalizes abortion?

Why don''t we re-phrase the statement, lest this turn into a giant abortion debate? How about, what if the government of a country criminalizes abortion?

Does this country get rewarded for its human rights policy or does it get branded as a barbaric? Im sure you can think of many other gray areas.

That depends, I suppose, largely upon the reasons why said government outlaws the practice. If it is simply to punish pregnant women who are normally second-class citizens, then there might be a case to condemn the act. On the other hand, if the reason to outlaw abortion were based upon religious and/or moral beliefs then one could argue that there is no human rights violation taking place since the spirit of the law is to prevent the possible ending of a human life.

The UN hardly makes a peep about women being forced to wear burkas and criminals being beheaded for murder and drug trafficing. That''s sharia, after all, and it would be impolite to make too much of a fuss about Islamic Law.

However, I think your abortion example is more of a straw man when compared to more concrete examples of egregious governments and atrocities (see links in my previous post).

Hmmm... interesting that you guys jump down my throat when I was pointing out a flaw in ALG''s system of rewarding countries based on their human rights record.

That depends, I suppose, largely upon the reasons why said government outlaws the practice. If it is simply to punish pregnant women who are normally second-class citizens, then there might be a case to condemn the act. On the other hand, if the reason to outlaw abortion were based upon religious and/or moral beliefs then one could argue that there is no human rights violation taking place since the spirit of the law is to prevent the possible ending of a human life.

That is what Im saying. We can all come up with plenty more gray areas where we would have to determine whether this is a religious belief or another way of oppressing the citiczens. BTW I accept your restatement as more appropriate.

Wow - 30 years of brainwashing at work... So if abortion is illegal then the mother''s life is worth less than the child''s? Explain that one to me...

If continuing the pregnancy causes permanent damage or risk of death for the mother, pressing criminal charges you are valuing the life of the child over the life of the mother. Of course I dont expect you to undertand that. I do however, expect ALG to.

If continuing the pregnancy causes permanent damage or risk of death for the mother, pressing criminal charges you are valuing the life of the child over the life of the mother.

You might be surprised at my position on that. However, abortion for the safety of the mother is less than 1% of cases - the rest are basically done to keep from making the parents'' lives inconvenient...

How many abortions are performed per year? 1% obviously wont stop the world from spinning. However, the raw number could be significant when you are talking about jailing or deaths.

edit: 1,312,990 abortions in the US in 2000 (google search)

1% of that is 13,129

"fangblackbone" wrote:

That is what Im saying. We can all come up with plenty more gray areas where we would have to determine whether this is a religious belief or another way of oppressing the citiczens.

Absolutely. We could spend all day coming up with gray areas.

Problem is, the UN has been faced with issues that weren''t gray (""shall we do anything about the genocide in Rwanda?"" ""should anything be done about a regime that has used chemical weapons in the past and is violating the rules we set for it over a decade ago?"") and has failed miserably.

Agreed. The UN is a failure and the US should have nothing to do with it anymore.

The funny thing is that when Lawyeron is sarcastic, it reveals the idiocy of whatever position he is talking about - and even people who don''t know his views can see it. When Democrats are sarcastic it just seems like they finally started to make sense.

Agreed. I mean, come on, when has the UN done anything right? It''s not like they''ve ever gotten along well enough to do the right thing...

Okay, excluding Gulf War I...

And Israel...

Oh, there''s the Korean War...

Hmmm, I guess you have to count Resolution 1441, damn, I should think these things through next time.

When we started the UN and when it has been led by our values, it has been a great institution - when it is a committee of tyrants and fools, it becomes irrelevant.

Actually, I''ve always though Lawyeron made the most sense when being sarcastic. You know, now that I think about it, sarcastic Republicans often sound like they''re finally coming around.

Actually, I''ve always though Lawyeron made the most sense when being sarcastic. You know, now that I think about it, sarcastic Republicans often sound like they''re finally coming around.

And when you copy what I say, you finally start to make sense...

When we started the UN and when it has been led by our values, it has been a great institution

And who''s fault is it now that we dont have a leader with values worth following?

And who''s fault is it now that we dont have a leader with values worth following?

Let''s look at George Bush''s ""values"" he has called upon to have the UN support:

* the disarmament of Saddam Hussein
* the enforcement of 18 resolutions spanning 12 years
* support for an Iraq trying to achieve democracy
* an end to international sex slavery

Now Fang, I know we all lose if international sex slavery is ended, but surely you can''t have any issue with the other ones...

Arnie could have gotten UN backing.

He could have calmed fears of uncertain Europeans.

He would have eaten the French for lunch.

As you can guess, I fully support the United Nations. Without the UN how could the world ever stop unchecked United States aggression?

I think ChrisG has it right. The integrity of the UN means a lot to Europeans. What ticks me off is the adminstration starting this ""fictional war"" based on UN resolutions. How dare he take resolutions from the UN and use it as a basis for ""his"" war? Those resolutions against Iraq were doing exactly what they were intended to do; expressing an opinion of disfavor against Iraq. I don''t think it was necessary or appropriate to use Saddam''s supposed ""violations"" of the resolutions to justify the toppling of a UN recognized sovereign nation. I think 12 or 13 more resolutions, and Saddam would have been begging for free elections. I really do!
Republicans ridicule the UN because of isolated incidents such as when Libya was placed on the human rights panel. First, Libya was not specially selected, it was her turn on the panel. Second, what better way to educate a country that is less than agreeable on a particular issue, than by placing them on a panel where there is free and open debate. Further, the UN could learn a lot about human rights violations from countries like Libya, knowledge and experience which should not be ignored.
Finally, the most important factor of the UN - which this administration has severely compromised - is to give power to the ""little guy"". Sure America has the big guns and the nuclear missiles, but who would listen to the countries that are not as strong such a France and Germany? The UN gives smaller countries stronger influence with the power of a vote rather than a gun. Isn''t that what America is supposed to be about?
And for those that think that Europe is pro Saddam over America and Isreal, don''t forget that it was a United Nations charter that created the new nation of Isreal in Palestine on May 14, 1948. Just think what kind of a world we would live in today if the United Nations hadn''t done that?

Andthat''show you do sarcasm!

"fangblackbone" wrote:
When we started the UN and when it has been led by our values, it has been a great institution

And who''s fault is it now that we dont have a leader with values worth following?

I would think it''ll take a while to completely rid the Presidency of the stigma Clinton left.

"Lawyeron" wrote:

As you can guess, I fully support the United Nations. Without the UN how could the world ever stop unchecked United States aggression?

I think ChrisG has it right. The integrity of the UN means a lot to Europeans. What ticks me off is the adminstration starting this ""fictional war"" based on UN resolutions. How dare he take resolutions from the UN and use it as a basis for ""his"" war? Those resolutions against Iraq were doing exactly what they were intended to do; expressing an opinion of disfavor against Iraq. I don''t think it was necessary or appropriate to use Saddam''s supposed ""violations"" of the resolutions to justify the toppling of a UN recognized sovereign nation. I think 12 or 13 more resolutions, and Saddam would have been begging for free elections. I really do!
Republicans ridicule the UN because of isolated incidents such as when Libya was placed on the human rights panel. First, Libya was not specially selected, it was her turn on the panel. Second, what better way to educate a country that is less than agreeable on a particular issue, than by placing them on a panel where there is free and open debate. Further, the UN could learn a lot about human rights violations from countries like Libya, knowledge and experience which should not be ignored.
Finally, the most important factor of the UN - which this administration has severely compromised - is to give power to the ""little guy"". Sure America has the big guns and the nuclear missiles, but who would listen to the countries that are not as strong such a France and Germany? The UN gives smaller countries stronger influence with the power of a vote rather than a gun. Isn''t that what America is supposed to be about?
And for those that think that Europe is pro Saddam over America and Isreal, don''t forget that it was a United Nations charter that created the new nation of Isreal in Palestine on May 14, 1948. Just think what kind of a world we would live in today if the United Nations hadn''t done that?

L (can I call you L?) you fail to realize that even though the majority of the world and the UN disagree with America, it doesn''t matter, because we''re America! They should be listening to us because we are the world''s leaders. The leader shouldn''t kneel before the followers. The UN was wrong to let in the Libyan government to the human rights council; people that evil can''t possibly change. Once evil always evil in my book. And why should we even bother with enforcing UN regulations? That would be giving that illegitimate organization too much credit and admitting that the UN has some authority over world affairs, which it shouldn''t. And the Un-united Nations dropped the ball on Israel by trying to acknowledge the interests of the Palestinians. The PLO is an evil organization and evil must be destroyed whereever it sleeps. The Palestinians would be better off under the strong, effective, and fair leadership of Ariel Sharon.

the majority of the world and the UN disagree with America

Only because we don''t list pro-American behavior as a requisite to our foreign aid and UN budgets.

Maybe we should. The world would be better off as America.