To chair the 2009 governing board of the U.N.’s flagship agency, the multibillion-dollar globe-girdling United Nations Development Program, dedicated to promoting good governance and ending poverty, the U.N. has now picked–wait for it–the Islamic Republic of Iran.Another demonstration, as if we needed it, that the UN is years past its sell-by date. The U.S. should eliminate the stench and close the building in New York.
...
But handing Iran the gavel of the UNDP executive board ranks right up there with the U.N.'s choice in 2003 of Libya to head the old Human Rights Commission, or Zimbabwe in 2007 to chair the Commission on Sustainable Development.
[Hat Tip: Pajamas Media]
2 comments:
Hi Jeff,
well what do you say about this? It really would be funny if not so tragic - maybe the U.N officals responsible should be physically taken to Tehran and be forced to watch the public excecutions (some of children) perfomed by the Mullahs over there.
Even the liberal Amnesty International have been banging on about Iran lately.
But then, really, I don't think anything short of their own deaths would shake these U.N fanatics from their ideological agendas...do you?
Cheers Lee
Sadly, it's perfectly consistent with the UN as an institution dominated by appeasers of dictators and statist regimes (when they're not actively cheerleading).
It's been that way since its beginning and is the inevitable outcome of Wilson's vision for the organization. The U.S. should never have joined in the first place, and to host it in New York, the home of American capitalism, of all places is grotesque.
Fortunately, the UN has little actual influence on U.S. foreign policy.
As to your question, a great many so-called liberals have died; it doesn't change the agendas of those who support the organization and its goals. Unless, I take your words literally, in which case I'd have to conclude that, indeed, their deaths would change their agendas, by necessity. :)
Post a Comment