If the UN Dies
Filed under: Iran, UN — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on March 31, 2008 @ 6:52 pm CEST
We’ll all be happy. Well: “Everyone’s favorite IRNA editor-at-large has taken issue with my UN death knell… I think Cernig’s primary hang-up here is how he views the UN, and what precisely the role of such a global, deliberative body should be. The problem with his argument is that the UN was not an institution built for growth, but rather, an institution built for results.” Quite right Kevin. The problem with the UN is that the only ‘results’ are pro-Islamist and anti-Israel results. Interesting to see that Kevin’s referred to as a “liberal” with quotation marks. What, liberals are not allowed to be hawks with regards to foreign policy? If they are they’re not liberals but “liberals”?
1 Kevin Sullivan
March 31, 2008 @ 7:02 pm CESTThe problem is the distinct class of "liberal hawks" in the first place. I usually tolerate it, but I defy Cernig et. al to show me Liberals who didn’t exhibit hawkish tendencies throughout the 2oth Century.
All of our liberal lions waged wars, bombed villages and believed in violence as a means to achieve policy ends. Liberalism, coupled with "hawkish" tendencies, is more the norm than the exception.
2 Cernig
March 31, 2008 @ 8:35 pm CESTKevin,
Hawkish tendencies were the norm of the 20th century, whether the proponents were liberal or not. See where they got us. Time they were consigned to the same shelf as being openly colonialist - the "White Man’s Burden" and "Manifest destiny" claptrap that stood behind those hawkish tendencies.
"hawkish liberals"? So conservatively last century, dude.
Regards, C