I should not reply to you as usual, but your response is idiotic - typical right-wing nutty.
Super, I was waiting for the 'idiot' reference, but I'm disappointed I didn't get a Save234 at the end! Couldn't you at least throw in your '95% of what I say is drivel, the other 5% stuck in my mouth'?
It's like 'The Police should tell peple who protest their beating people wrongly, that they will no longer do any police work at those people's homes if crimes happen.
Usually your analogies are a trainwreck and not applicable, however, I'll try and make yours work here. I know you won't get it, but, others viewing the thread will at least understand:
When it's a bunch of people (media in various countries, normal people in various countries, actual elected members in various countries) living in one house (Earth), and these people constantly deride the police (US/The West), constantly have ill will towards the police, constantly always have a negative thing to say about the police, no matter if the police work OT for these people (respond to various entities in need), shed blood (send our own children to get killed and/or maimed) for these people, donate to these people (our own treasure we end up paying for), etc., then really, when two of these people in the same house are fighting with each other (Iraq before The Surge which wouldn't work worked, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, etc.) and it gets heated, why would anyone ever expect the police to go into the equivalent of South Central L.A. at night for a report of two gangs having it out with each other? At some point, when the local community will not help itself, is combative towards the police, resentful towards the police, hostile towards the police, complains to the mayor (the UN) about the bad bad police, the police who have been trying the best despite this same thankless people, are just going to say, 'Yeah, call us when the shoutings over, we'll take a drive on through to see what's left.'
You don't like the police, fine.'
No,
I like the police just fine Craig. It's
you who think they'll be "less effective human beings" for being the police.
The US should use its military for good purposes - like enforcing good UN measures.
That's the problem Craig, "good" is a subjective word. You didn't want the evil "Bush&Co" to go into Iraq, instead you wanted the UN to do its thing, have that situation last another 40 years, which isn't sustainable, eventually have Saddam and/or one of his nutf*ck sons get a real WMD, and then the entire ME region is radically more destabilized than it is even now. To say nothing of the conditions the Iraqi's would live under for that period. To say nothing of all the games The Evil West would have to be playing with him over that period. Because, short of Bush doing what he did, that was the only way Saddam was realistically going anywhere. I am one who thought what Bush did was, long term, good ("good" to you).
So now you're saying the US military should make itself available to the UN, a body so smart and trustworthy it has Libya on the Human Rights council or WhateverTF they are on. A body that flaps it's lips (hmmm..just like you!) but
never actually
acts prior to when acting is needed - meaning: When it will actually do some F'ing good, not after its too F'ing late and now its convenient to go in (perfect example: UN effort in Sudan, stalled, because out of the entire UN, they couldn't muster 24 F'ing helicopters.
The vaunted UN in action).
Why would the US ever want to be tied to a group like that? Ever?
Chuck