Cosmoline
Member
Getting back to firearms, their idea of "peace keeping" has always been to provide food to the starving but only if they hand over their iron. They then send stern notes of protest to the local junta when some militia walk right past the blue helmets and slaughter the same villagers. It's been the pattern from Bosnia to Darfur. The old Cold War notion of arming each side and teaching the villagers to defend themselves is seen as barbaric, but it at least gave the victims a fighting chance to keep their homes and some level of dignity. The really sad part is that many of these forces doing the killing are a joke. A few well trained units and some airstrikes would send them packing in a week. They operate with impunity (and by operate I mean rape, torture and kill in the most unspeakable way possible) only because they face no real opposition.
Back when it was founded by the rosey-eyed internationalists in the wake of WWII, the UN was supposed to be the ultimate tool for preventing any more tyrants from rising up and slaughtering populations. Well everybody knows it has failed in every possible respect in that goal. Even its supporters must admit that. At best it's been a somewhat useful tool against the Soviet Union. But now what's the point? We all know its stand on firearms, and we all know that the UN's stand on firearms is an inherent part of how they view individual rights. Individuals are at best children, with a "right" to be fed and warm. But that's as far as it goes.
So they do not support the ideals that made this Republic great. That should be an end to the debate about supporting them.