To all you UN bashers

[carbonmotion]

I've been reading alot of UN bashing threads on this forum... I just want to say this: a year ago FA magazine published an interesting article about the UN. Despite the fact that the current state of the UN resembles the Roman sentate during the rule of the Ceasers; when it comes to feeding people, fighting disasters, making peace, and keeping the peace the UN has done excessively well given the about of political support, military cooperation, and funding that it is given. While the need for its exsistence may not be evident to those who dwell in the comforts of a first-class industrialized nation, the UN is the only life line to many of the poor and suffering around the world. On top of that, it is also a relativly cheap way for start-up nations to get their feet wet diplomatically without having to resort to the building of expensive embassies that few nation beside the superpowers can afford.

With the United State blatantly violating UN edicts and the EU moving toward its own micro version of the UN, it is undoubtedly on the minds of many whether the UN will have any hope for a prolonged future. I want to make the argument here that to disempower this international body will not only doom the future of many developing countries around the world, but also the last beacon of hope of the hungry and the abused. True, it is far from a perfect instrument of international multi-lateralism. Yet, despite all of its flaws, the network that the UN has established since its inception is the best chance vestiage we've have to promoting world peace.

*as always, excuse my typos

[Desertrat]

"...to disempower this international body will not only doom the future of many developing countries around the world, but also the last beacon of hope of the hungry and the abused."

I won't say I disagree with this thesis, but it doesn't speak to the question of why these countries can't succeed without UN help, or why the hungry and abused are in such a state.

Seems to me that a problem within the UN is that any thugocracy that gives the right lip-service can join up and be treated just like "regular folks" instead of the murdering bastards that they are.

The western nations have spent a ton of money on, e.g., Africa. Reduced infant mortality; extended lifespans. Yet, the thugocracies merely steal all the money they can promote from foreign aid, and make no effort or very little effort to allow--allow, I said, not promote--any sort of decent internal economy.

'Rat

[carbonmotion]

The UN has corrupton problems, yet. But so does the united state, canada, china, japan, britan, spain, russia and just about every democratic nation or independent-territory on the face of this world. No human institution can be devoid of such unfortunate facts, exceptionally not something as large as the UN. While most who work there are very idealistic people, there are bad apple in the best of harvests.

If it wasn't for the teams of dedicated promoters trying to beg just a tad bit more funding from nation to nation, the fate of many around the world may very well be consigned to a certain death. In an effort to promote his war on the middle east, the Bush administration had purposefully started a campaign to smear the image of the UN in America. The United Nations, while far from perfect, is no where near as bad as what the conservatives try to sell. Instead of being filled with greedy money grubbing bast@rds, it is instead filled with many idealistic, intelligent, and hard working people who made many sacrafices -including but not limited to leaving the money rich corprate sector for a UN job- for the betterment of the people. Sure, in order to get a food shipment from point A to point B palms must be greased, that is a unfortunate fact about the world in which all of us inhabit that we must deal with. One of my best friends graduated from Berkley Law with a degree in International Trade Law -she could easily have gotten a corprate job making 120,000 dollars or more, yet she choose to take a durastic pay cut because she believes in an organization who's vision is a more peaceful world. I myself am headed down the same path that she is, a future hopeful applicant to an ivy league lawschool or equivelent lawschool, hoping to obtain a degree in Inter'nl Trade Law. I can now only begin to understand the amount of hardwork required for such an achievement and the strength it must take to resist the temptation of monetary gains. To say that the UN is filled with money grubby thieves is to spite in the face of people like my friend who sacraficed everything for her belief in a better world. ...And THAT, ladies and gents, is why it pisses me off to hear people bash the UN.

[skunk]

And THAT, ladies and gents, is why it pisses me off to hear people bash the UN.
Fair enough. :)
Well put.

[Desertrat]

I'm fully aware of the warts on the butts of the nations you listed. However, insofar as daily treatment of their own citizens, they don't hold a candle to the thugocracies wherein are most of the problems.

The Bushies haven't done doodlie-squat to create any more hostility toward the UN than has existed here in the U.S. for quite a few decades. UN members do quite well in that "creationism", thank you.

Look: Any organization whose rules allow membership on a committee for human rights, yet ignores the issue of slavery in one of those seated on the committee, has got more problems than we can "solve" in a web forum.

'Rat

[skunk]

Look: Any organization whose rules allow membership on a committee for human rights, yet ignores the issue of slavery in one of those seated on the committee, has got more problems than we can "solve" in a web forum.
'Rat
It's open to any other members of that organization to raise the matter in council. A little difficult for the US to make a principled stand right now, though....

[Thanatoast]

The Bushies haven't done doodlie-squat to create any more hostility toward the UN than has existed here in the U.S. for quite a few decades. UN members do quite well in that "creationism", thank you.

'RatNow I'm going to have to disagree with that statement. The Bushies fanned the flames of anti-UN sentiment for months before the war when they realized that the UN wouldn't go along with their invasion plans for Iraq. Remember all the comments about the UN being castrated and not following through? And then what happened after the war? The UN turned out to be right and the Bushies are like, "what? :innocent look: we didn't do anything wrong."

[Frohickey]

The beginnings of anti-UN sentiment in the US predates that of GWBush. I would not even give GWBush the credit for starting that.

I think it was Congressman Ron Paul that has been introducing and re-introducing a Get-the-US out of the UN bill, and its been getting more and more support as time has passed.

[Neserk]

The beginnings of anti-UN sentiment in the US predates that of GWBush. I would not even give GWBush the credit for starting that.

.

True. I recall discussing it in a Senior Level College course, in 1992.

[carbonmotion]

The bush entourage certainly sowed their share of anti-UN sentiments... but yes, you are correct that we seem to hate the world more as they hate us more. ...What do that call that? Mutal regression?

[carbonmotion]

Look: Any organization whose rules allow membership on a committee for human rights, yet ignores the issue of slavery in one of those seated on the committee, has got more problems than we can "solve" in a web forum.
'Rat

As with all organizations, the people with the most power have a say... I'm assuming you're talking about China. Well china is a G7 and thus weld great power and influence in the UN, its not easy for an organization to stand up and smack one of its oldest memeber. Not to mention a very un-diplomatic and un-pragmatic thing to do seeing as how China has taken the initiative to try to curb its human rights violations.

[Sayhey]

The beginnings of anti-UN sentiment in the US predates that of GWBush. I would not even give GWBush the credit for starting that.

I think it was Congressman Ron Paul that has been introducing and re-introducing a Get-the-US out of the UN bill, and its been getting more and more support as time has passed.

The anti-UN nuts have been at it since the organization was formed. The old John Birch Society used to put out all kinds of nonsense about the "socialistic" and "one world government" nature of the UN. It was a major part of Barry Goldwater's campaign in '64. Ron Paul is the one truly libertarian member of Congress (he ran for President on the Libertarian Party ticket.) It is no accident that with his way out views that he leads the way on trying to destroy the UN.

Nice post, carbonmotion.

[IJ Reilly]

The anti-UN nuts have been at it since the organization was formed. The old John Birch Society used to put out all kinds of nonsense about the "socialistic" and "one world government" nature of the UN. It was a major part of Barry Goldwater's campaign in '64. Ron Paul is the one truly libertarian member of Congress (he ran for President on the Libertarian Party ticket.) It is no accident that with his way out views that he leads the way on trying to destroy the UN.

I'm going to have to work more quickly if I'm going to beat you to any of this stuff. I knew a John Bircher during the early '70s. He was a real nice guy until you started talking about the UN.

As for the UN, I think some people are under the mistaken impression that it's supposed to be some sort of "good guys club." It was never intended as such. It was created as a place for nations to solve conflicts with words instead of bombs and bullets. Sometimes it works; often it doesn't -- but it doesn't work at all if only the "nice nations" are admitted.

As a wise man once said, "Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war."

[Krizoitz]

The UN could be a great thing, and undoubtedly has been beneficial. However, I still have a big complaint.

One of the reasons I initially supported the war effort in Iraq was the fact that the UN had basically done nothing to enforce its own resolutions.

While it appears Sadaam didn't have WMD, no one really knew. We should have known because according to the UN resolution and the terms that ended the Gulf War he was supposed to allow full inspections and PROVE that the weapons were destroyed.

If the UN had done their job in the first place instead of allowing countries like France to drag it out for their own financial benefit, we might not have this whole war mess in the first place (This is not to excuse the lies and actions of the Bush administration which I feel are also wrong).

I would love nothing better than an effective UN that would help keep the world at peace, and they seem to have done atleast some of that so far, however if they continue to degenerate into inaction, then whats the point?

[Voltron]

The UN could be a great thing, and undoubtedly has been beneficial. However, I still have a big complaint.

One of the reasons I initially supported the war effort in Iraq was the fact that the UN had basically done nothing to enforce its own resolutions.

While it appears Sadaam didn't have WMD, no one really knew. We should have known because according to the UN resolution and the terms that ended the Gulf War he was supposed to allow full inspections and PROVE that the weapons were destroyed.

If the UN had done their job in the first place instead of allowing countries like France to drag it out for their own financial benefit, we might not have this whole war mess in the first place (This is not to excuse the lies and actions of the Bush administration which I feel are also wrong).

I would love nothing better than an effective UN that would help keep the world at peace, and they seem to have done atleast some of that so far, however if they continue to degenerate into inaction, then whats the point?
Can't do that as long as they keep letting the bad guys in as members.
Either they are a authoritarian force and you keep out all them totilitarians like Syria etc or they are for everyone and has no real authority.

[mactastic]

So when it's our military, it's a few bad apples that don't reflect on the entire military; yet when it's the UN those few bad apples have ruined it and reflect terribly on the whole organization? Nifty double standard you got going on there. So I suppose the abuse problem in our military is too big of a problem to 'solve' in a web forum? Yet there is never any shortage of people trying to 'solve' the UN problem by bashing on it....

[Desertrat]

Nope, not China. Either Chad or Sudan on the human rights committee; both countries are blind to the slavery occuring in that part of Africa. And, there is still slavery in several Arab countries. What's called "slave labor" in China is more accurately termed prison labor. (I grant that there are crimes iin China that aren't crimes in the western nations.)

When you look at the difficulties every nation has in governing, how can any person with claims to rational thought believe that a "One World" government is workable?

Ron Paul is strong on national sovereignty and on the U.S. Constitution. What's wrong with that? That doesn't mean he's right on each and every point he tries to make, but the general tenor of his views puts "We, The People" first.

The problem with "talk, talk, talk" instead of "war, war, war" is that while we're talking, others in the thugocracies are killing or starving or enslaving.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

'Rat, your focus on the Human Rights Committee borders on the obsessional. Are you expecting me to defend China or Chad? Slavery? The UN's difficulty in dealing with these problems is a legitimate criticism -- but don't try to divert attention from the main question about the reasons why the UN was formed. It's not, and never was, a good guys club, and it's not and never was an alliance. It was also never meant to be a "one world government."

[mactastic]

So 'Rat, what do you do about a country like Sudan? Do we resign from everything they show up to?

And why do you tolerate administration policies towards China, but harp so greatly on the abuses of Sudan and Chad, not to mention Saddam?

I can't see how our withdrawing from the UN makes things better...

[IJ Reilly]

From the UN Charter:
CHAPTER I

PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

[Sayhey]

IJ, you must have left out the part that talks about world domination, slavery, socialism, and the destruction of Christianity. I'm sure it's in there somewhere, right? ;)

[carbonmotion]

The foriegn policy of the United State is for all intents and purposes thugcratic, short sighted, and proned to failure. While we sit in our half-million suburban mansions mocking the UN for all of its failures and weeknesses, we failed to realize our own record in international intervention has been far far worse. From North Korea to Iraq, from Vietnam to Somolia, our soldiers have the proverbial touch of Midas, except instead of gold, it is hatred and fear. While the UN has had its failure share of failures in peacekeeping, it also has far more successes than the United States or any single european nation. To mock the UN is an act of hippocracy; until we improve our own record around the world, we have no right to critisize those doing better then we.

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, you must have left out the part that talks about world domination, slavery, socialism, and the destruction of Christianity. I'm sure it's in there somewhere, right? ;)

Hmm, it must be in there somewhere. I only read the Preamble and Chapter 1.

[Krizoitz]

The foriegn policy of the United State is for all intents and purposes thugcratic, short sighted, and proned to failure. While we sit in our half-million suburban mansions mocking the UN for all of its failures and weeknesses, we failed to realize our own record in international intervention has been far far worse. From North Korea to Iraq, from Vietnam to Somolia, our soldiers have the proverbial touch of Midas, except instead of gold, it is hatred and fear. While the UN has had its failure share of failures in peacekeeping, it also has far more successes than the United States or any single european nation. To mock the UN is an act of hippocracy; until we improve our own record around the world, we have no right to critisize those doing better then we.

Korea, Vietnam, and Somalia were all UN actions that the US participated in. Bad example.

[carbonmotion]

Korea, Vietnam, and Somalia were all UN actions that the US participated in. Bad example. Somalia had a UN peacekeeping for that operated indepent of the US military assasins. Yes, it is true that both sides assisted one another when the need arise, but the Ranger Division stationed there was no under the control of UN personnel. My example of Korea does not stem from the forces flying the flag of the UN at the DMZ but rather the countless simulated nuclear bombing excercises undertaken by the USAF and the South Korean Defense Force which clearly and blatantly violates the specific paragraphs under the Framework. As for Vietnam, the decade long military action there was the sole work of the United States Military, under funding and command of the United States. It does not involve a multi-lateral military action.

[Frohickey]

Somalia had a UN peacekeeping for that operated indepent of the US military assasins. Yes, it is true that both sides assisted one another when the need arise, but the Ranger Division stationed there was no under the control of UN personnel. My example of Korea does not stem from the forces flying the flag of the UN at the DMZ but rather the countless simulated nuclear bombing excercises undertaken by the USAF and the South Korean Defense Force which clearly and blatantly violates the specific paragraphs under the Framework. As for Vietnam, the decade long military action there was the sole work of the United States Military, under funding and command of the United States. It does not involve a multi-lateral military action.

Somalia was begun as a humanitarian effort. When the food shipments were started and were stolen by the warlords, that is when armed forces were involved in order to stop the stealing of the food shipments.

Should I remind everyone that the Korean War started when the north koreans invaded the south???

Vietnam and the US involvement was because of the US alliance with France, and Vietnam was a French colony at that time. Vietnam (Ho Chi Minh) did try to involve the US and get the US to support Vietnamese independence, but our alliance with France put the kebosh (sp?) on that idea. This drove the Vietnamese to the communist camp.

[IJ Reilly]

Actually, our involvement in Vietnam was a direct expression of the Truman Doctrine. It had very little to do with France, which forfeited its colonial interests in Indochina in 1954 after they were defeated by the insurgents at Dien Bien Phu. The US didn't become fully involved until almost ten years later, after the country had been divided, and the north began its campaign to overthrow the government of the south.

[carbonmotion]

Alot of the actions had the UN seal of approval yet, but I'm making the argument that in many of my cases where the US acted as a unilateral military enforcer, bad things happen.

And ofcourse you didn't say anything to counter the US violation of the Korean Framework repeatedly... so, I'm assuming that you agree with my conclusion.

[Frohickey]

Actually, our involvement in Vietnam was a direct expression of the Truman Doctrine. It had very little to do with France, which forfeited its colonial interests in Indochina in 1954 after they were defeated by the insurgents at Dien Bien Phu. The US didn't become fully involved until almost ten years later, after the country had been divided, and the north began its campaign to overthrow the government of the south.

And if the US had encouraged/supported Vietnamese independence from France, as a complete country, what would that have done? No communist north to begin a campaign to overthrow the government of the south. It would be one big happy family, from north to south, trading with the Western world. Vietnam would be exporting Pho restaurants all over the world, and we would have Ford/GM opening factories in Vietnam to make cars. :D :p

[carbonmotion]

And if the US had encouraged/supported Vietnamese independence from France, as a complete country, what would that have done? No communist north to begin a campaign to overthrow the government of the south. It would be one big happy family, from north to south, trading with the Western world. Vietnam would be exporting Pho restaurants all over the world, and we would have Ford/GM opening factories in Vietnam to make cars. :D :p maybe.

[blackfox]

And if the US had encouraged/supported Vietnamese independence from France, as a complete country, what would that have done? No communist north to begin a campaign to overthrow the government of the south. It would be one big happy family, from north to south, trading with the Western world. Vietnam would be exporting Pho restaurants all over the world, and we would have Ford/GM opening factories in Vietnam to make cars. :D :p
Well, there ARE Pho restaurants all over the US at least...and Ford, Chrysler (and toyota) got permission to set up plants in Vietnam in 1995...so what was the point again?

[Desertrat]

Sheesh, IJ! I'm not "harping" on Chad or on the human rights committee. I merely used it as an example of some of the problems the UN has; I got argued with; I just explained why the example was used.

And I don't see how my just-in-passing comment about China advocated anything, pro or con, about China.

And before you start re-writing the history of our involvement in Vietnam, I suggest you look up the South ast Asia Treaty Organization, which was part of the deal creating a North and a South Vietnam. The only way this was any part of the "Truman Doctrine" was insofar as it was part of the ongoing
effort to stop the Communists' efforts to fulfill their stated effort of world domination.

carbonmotion, *what* violation of the "Korean Framework"?

'Rat

[carbonmotion]

Sheesh, IJ! I'm not "harping" on Chad or on the human rights committee. I merely used it as an example of some of the problems the UN has; I got argued with; I just explained why the example was used.

And I don't see how my just-in-passing comment about China advocated anything, pro or con, about China.

And before you start re-writing the history of our involvement in Vietnam, I suggest you look up the South ast Asia Treaty Organization, which was part of the deal creating a North and a South Vietnam. The only way this was any part of the "Truman Doctrine" was insofar as it was part of the ongoing
effort to stop the Communists' efforts to fulfill their stated effort of world domination.

carbonmotion, *what* violation of the "Korean Framework"?

'Rat
I'll cite specific examples when i reread the Framework tonight.

[IJ Reilly]

Sheesh, IJ! I'm not "harping" on Chad or on the human rights committee. I merely used it as an example of some of the problems the UN has; I got argued with; I just explained why the example was used.

And I don't see how my just-in-passing comment about China advocated anything, pro or con, about China.

And here I thought you were using them as examples of how "one world government" would never work...

And before you start re-writing the history of our involvement in Vietnam, I suggest you look up the South ast Asia Treaty Organization, which was part of the deal creating a North and a South Vietnam. The only way this was any part of the "Truman Doctrine" was insofar as it was part of the ongoing
effort to stop the Communists' efforts to fulfill their stated effort of world domination.

No Truman Doctrine, no SEATO. It was formed to fight communism in Indochina, as we both seem to agree. My only point here is that our military involvement with Vietnam wasn't a gimme to France, as Frohickey suggested. Great Britain was also a member of SEATO, but I don't recall them sending troops to Vietnam.

[Frohickey]

No Truman Doctrine, no SEATO. It was formed to fight communism in Indochina, as we both seem to agree. My only point here is that our military involvement with Vietnam wasn't a gimme to France, as Frohickey suggested. Great Britain was also a member of SEATO, but I don't recall them sending troops to Vietnam.

Well, lets go back a bit further then.

Without Truman, there would be no state of Israel in the Middle East either. The United Nations resolution made that possible. (I'm not saying I'm for or against Israel.) But it is a known fact that Truman's own Secretary of State, George Catlett Marshall (yes, the same GCMarshall that was instrumental in the WW2 allied effort) was against the formation of a Jewish state in the Middle East. :eek:

[IJ Reilly]

So?

We weren't debating any of that. And we weren't even debating whether the Truman Doctrine was a good or bad thing.

[Sayhey]

And before you start re-writing the history of our involvement in Vietnam, I suggest you look up the South ast Asia Treaty Organization, which was part of the deal creating a North and a South Vietnam. The only way this was any part of the "Truman Doctrine" was insofar as it was part of the ongoing
effort to stop the Communists' efforts to fulfill their stated effort of world domination.

'Rat,

I think it is you who is re-writing history. SEATO was in response to the fall of French Colonialism in Vietnam, but it certainly wasn't a part of any deal creating a North and South divide of the country. The division of Vietnam at the 17th parallel was a temporary measure agreed to in the Geneva Accords. There was to be a national election in 1956 covering all the territory of Vietnam for one government. An election that even the US acknowledged the Vietminh would win. The US government did not want this to happen and help set up a government in the Southern section (including writing the constitution.) This was in blatant violation of the Geneva agreement.

SEATO was indeed an expression of the Truman doctrine of containment, written by "Mr. X" (aka George Kennan (http://www.historyguide.org/europe/kennan.html).) Just as NATO and CENTO were expressions of this policy. This doctrine is what formed the basis of Cold War policies from the Truman administration until the fall of the Soviet Union during the first Bush years.

[Desertrat]

Okay, sayhey, I follow. I guess it's fair to say that the various ideas and efforts to contain Communism followed the over-arching doctrine Truman started. However, Ike was Prez when Dien Ben Phu fell, et seq. The division of Vietnam and the Treaty were, to me, part of a group of decisions which related to one another.

Historical note: In 1954, the Army was picking experienced people from outfits in South Korea to make up a force to possibly land in "French IndoChina". Around the time of Dien Ben Phu, we had two troopships offshore and ready. Ike decided no-go. Smart Ike.

Bits&Pieces: In 1953-1955, my mother worked a CIA job with Philippines President Magsaysay's land-reform movement. That reform effort, although it was disliked by the Very Rich, did notably defuse the efforts of the Communist guerillas, the Hukbalahap. There was some effort to get the same sort of program going in South Vietnam, but the (hindsight; IMO) corruption there prevented it.

*****

The idea of the UN as a world government is nothing new. Heck, Wendell Wilkie ran for president on a "one world" platform in the 1930s. But, you don't have to be jingoistic to believe in national sovereignty. And, from what I've seen, the larger a government gets, the less influence is had by "just folks". Seems to me that that's exactly what folks on this board are griping about: The lack of influence with the NeoCons running the U.S. Imagine NeoCons in control of the UN...

'Rat

[Sayhey]

Okay, sayhey, I follow. I guess it's fair to say that the various ideas and efforts to contain Communism followed the over-arching doctrine Truman started. However, Ike was Prez when Dien Ben Phu fell, et seq. The division of Vietnam and the Treaty were, to me, part of a group of decisions which related to one another.

Agreed, 'Rat, I've no problem with this formulation. They were indeed very much "related to one another."

Historical note: In 1954, the Army was picking experienced people from outfits in South Korea to make up a force to possibly land in "French IndoChina". Around the time of Dien Ben Phu, we had two troopships offshore and ready. Ike decided no-go. Smart Ike.

We were at the time bankrolling the French effort to the tune of about 80% of the costs. It was definitely smart of Ike not to try to replace French troops with American ones. Too bad he didn't support the Geneva Accords and let the people of Vietnam vote in 1956. We all could have skipped the US intervention of the '60s.

Bits&Pieces: In 1953-1955, my mother worked a CIA job with Philippines President Magsaysay's land-reform movement. That reform effort, although it was disliked by the Very Rich, did notably defuse the efforts of the Communist guerillas, the Hukbalahap. There was some effort to get the same sort of program going in South Vietnam, but the (hindsight; IMO) corruption there prevented it.

Interesting stuff. I didn't know there had even been any effort for land reform in Vietnam during this period.

[IJ Reilly]

Imagine NeoCons in control of the UN...

Not much danger of that. In fact not much danger of anyone gaining control of the UN. It's a chaotic body by its very nature, which is why I find this fear of a "one world government" to be such a waste of energy.

[Desertrat]

Agreed, IJ. Trouble is, there are just enough people who do believe in a One World deal that it distracts the "worriers" from worthwhile stuff. Creates a market for tinfoil, though.

Ya never know, though. You and I might have been affected by the rays beamed down upon us from ZOG's Black Helicopters.

'Rat