Wait, so... what capacity is the U.N. really the most useful option?
To some degrees humanitarian aid (UNICEF is one of the best aid organizations to this day IIRC), and acting as a forum for nations to talk to each other.
Of course, no wonder Bush let Osama escape to his handlers in Pakistan(who incidentally DO control and fund al Qaeda and Taliban) Bush, like Osama, is just a puppet of the same elites who control both Islamic terror and the US and British foreign policy.
Remember folks, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were found to be involved in 9/11, and look how the neocons covered that up.
Wait, what?
I was in middle school at the time so I never heard this.
I want details.
It's entropykid, what do you expect.
Some of the hijackers were Saudis. Not something that the administration talks about or focuses on, but it is knowledge that is pretty freely available and there isn't a coverup over it. If he is implying much more you may want to don your tinfoil hat.
Actually theres a lot of proof that criminal elements of the Saudi government and Pakistani ISI were involved in 9/11.
But hey, maybe the people saying "Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq" are "conspiracy theorists"?
Hey, maybe the people saying the US covered up Pat Tilman, Jessica Lynch, Depleted Uranium, torture, etc are "conspiracy moonbats?"
No surprise Bush was going to sell our ports to Osama's falcon hunting buddy in the UAE.
Wait, so... what capacity is the U.N. really the most useful option? Not to doubt the efficacy of the U.N in many situations (I think it's a decent forum for nations to talk to each other), but it seems really toothless in too many situations where an international body would seem necessary.
My international relations textbook had a study comparing the escalation of minor conflicts before and after the U.N.
I think the U.N. had something like a 17% success rate in terms of defusing armed conflict. Which doesn't sound like a lot, but I'm sure if you are one of the millions of people who would otherwise be dead it is fairly important.
But, it's hegemony is fundamentally derived from it's allies and trade relations, moreso than any empire in the past. (This is why the American Empire is comparatively more benign than it's predecessors)
A lot of Americans- particularly neocons- recognize it is the most powerful actor in the system. Relatively few Americans recognize that power doesn't come from aircraft carrier groups, Land Warrior, missile defense systems or nuclear armament*, but from it's political and economic alliances.
*Sure, that stuff is important, but it's only useful when the others have failed, and before the Bush (and to a much lesser extent, the Clinton) administration, an intelligent and forward thinking American foreign policy could have ensured it'd never be necessary.
Posts
To some degrees humanitarian aid (UNICEF is one of the best aid organizations to this day IIRC), and acting as a forum for nations to talk to each other.
Here you go:
Top intelligence committee head/US senator exposing Saudi involvement and Bush covering it up:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/08/graham/index.html
And heres just one of many mainstream articles showing how Pakistani ISI was deeply involved in 9/11:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1266317,00.html
Of course, no wonder Bush let Osama escape to his handlers in Pakistan(who incidentally DO control and fund al Qaeda and Taliban) Bush, like Osama, is just a puppet of the same elites who control both Islamic terror and the US and British foreign policy.
NeoRamen: panoramic cyberpunk gamer comic
Actually theres a lot of proof that criminal elements of the Saudi government and Pakistani ISI were involved in 9/11.
But hey, maybe the people saying "Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq" are "conspiracy theorists"?
Hey, maybe the people saying the US covered up Pat Tilman, Jessica Lynch, Depleted Uranium, torture, etc are "conspiracy moonbats?"
No surprise Bush was going to sell our ports to Osama's falcon hunting buddy in the UAE.
NeoRamen: panoramic cyberpunk gamer comic
I have a morbid fascination with what you would have to say about that.
My international relations textbook had a study comparing the escalation of minor conflicts before and after the U.N.
I think the U.N. had something like a 17% success rate in terms of defusing armed conflict. Which doesn't sound like a lot, but I'm sure if you are one of the millions of people who would otherwise be dead it is fairly important.
But, it's hegemony is fundamentally derived from it's allies and trade relations, moreso than any empire in the past. (This is why the American Empire is comparatively more benign than it's predecessors)
A lot of Americans- particularly neocons- recognize it is the most powerful actor in the system. Relatively few Americans recognize that power doesn't come from aircraft carrier groups, Land Warrior, missile defense systems or nuclear armament*, but from it's political and economic alliances.
*Sure, that stuff is important, but it's only useful when the others have failed, and before the Bush (and to a much lesser extent, the Clinton) administration, an intelligent and forward thinking American foreign policy could have ensured it'd never be necessary.
Alas, 'tis not the case.