Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: philv who wrote (21981)	11/26/2004 2:15:37 PM
From: sea_urchin	Respond to of 80957

Phil > They resent any initiative which opposes the US view. The reason why of course is because the US position is always correct and righteous. Sure. We saw that with Eyerak and, in fact, continue to do so. As long as the UN is castigating the Sudanese in Darfur or Mugabe in Zimbabwe that's fine -- but none dare point a finger at Israelis shooting children or the US torturing women at Abu Ghraib -- and the rest. Either sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, or it isn't. And, frankly, I don't blame those in the UN for getting pissed at the US and Israeli attitude. > It does no good to criticize a righteous act so the UN has no choice but to go along to get along. And it also does no good to criticize a heinous act -- so what we see now is that the Africans at UN have taken a leaf from the US book and will not go along with any suggestions that atrocities have been committed in Africa. If the US is immune from criticism, then so are they. > UN is dominated by the security council, members of which have a veto on anything they might propose, which makes that organization toothless and useless. Unless, historically, it has suited the purposes of the US eg in Korea, Bosnia, Kuwait etc. But now it seems some countries are not prepared to fall in line. Well, if that's the end of the UN then so be it.