Filed under: Iran, UN — Michael van der Galien 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”?
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
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