🚀 go-pugleaf

jm> John Methot
gs> Gary Strand
f > "Frank" (robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins))

f > Perhaps it is time the United Nations became a united nations organization
f > instead of a harlequin for the United States to dress up in.

gs> Puhleeze. The UN has hardly been the plaything of the US. Do you recall all
gs> those wonderful votes by the so-called Non-Aligned Nations that were cur-
gs> iously pro-USSR? Now, with the SU gone, the UN will start acting like a
gs> civilized body.

gs> Wait, don't tell me, you're in favor of World Government. Bzzznt. Join the
gs> decade, "Frank". The '60s *ARE OVER*.

jm> Geez, I've been "catch up"ing this group as a habit for a couple of years,
jm> now, but I stop in for a look and see Mr. Strand still looking at the world
jm> through red, white and blue glasses.  So much crap packed into such a small
jm> paragraph!  Where do I start?

  With a pill. For you to claim that I am some kind of die-hard "My country
  right or wrong" hyperpatriot, when you ought to know that I'm a libertarian,
  is really stupid. I'm not Ted Kaldis, you know. BTW, so much crap packed 
  into your longish article, but I think I've gotten off to a good start.

jm> IMHO, the U.N. has recently (last two years) become exactly a "plaything 
jm> of the U.S."

  Merely because, for once, US and UN interests coincided? What a shocker!

jm> Bush/Baker et al bullied, bribed and blackmailed most of the pro-Gulf War
jm> votes in the U.N. in Autumn, '90, as I'm sure was widely discussed here
jm> at the time (I didn't have access to the net).  This was widely touted
jm> as "the U.N. finally functioning."

  I'm sure the all the UN member states who voted against Iraq will be pleased
  to know that they've been reduced (in your eyes) to suck-ups to the US. I'm
  confident that the French will be especially happy that you view them that
  way. 

jm> I do "recall all those wonderful votes" of which Mr. Strand writes.

  Through a very distorted lens, it appears. Surely more than the US and Is-
  rael were committing less-than-respectable acts during the 1960s, 1970s,
  and 1980s, yet strangely enough, a good many UN votes went against US in-
  terests. Where were all the other condemnations? I suspect you're simply
  upset that you can't use the UN as often as you used to for the purpose
  of condemning US foreign policy. Now, I'm no great fan of US foreign pol-
  icy in general, but I do recognize when the US is getting screwed. By and
  large, the UN over the last couple of decades has not been an ally of the
  US. That's changed somewhat, but heaven forfend that you contemplate that
  there are people and countries that don't shout "America is Satan" all the
  time.

jm> Now, with the former SU gone, the US is the only superpower capable of
jm> dishing out sizeable "aid" and violence.  

  Would you prefer it the other way 'round, ie, US gone and SU the sole super-
  power? 

jm> Finally, while I'm a little too young (born 1960) to remember clearly, 

  I don't think it's your age that's the problem. It's the memory (or lack
  thereof) that is.

jm> The post-WWII movement was spearheaded by atomic and other scientists - far
jm> from the counter-culture Mr. Strand would like to associate the movement
jm> with in efforts to ridicule and discredit it.

  Hey, scientists can be just as silly and foolish when it comes to political
  beliefs as hippies and ivory-tower academicians. I know, I've worked with
  a few. You're making the same fallacy as you accuse me of making, ie, if
  scientists support it, it must be right and creditable. Bzzznt.

  I suggest you go back to "catch up"-ing this group, since it's pretty ob-
  vious your debating skills just aren't up to par. Why waste your time, my
  time, and the time of others, just making yourself look foolish?

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF