David Crawford on the UN

Mr. Crawford predictably commits all the logic errors to which partisan Democrats are generally prone.

1. OK, I'll bite

No one was fishing, David.

2. The purpose of the UN is to mediate disputes between nations. An important characteristic of mediation is that it preserves the sovereignty of all parties. The mediator is there to (dare I use this lingo) to facilitate discussion, not mandate solutions.

It generally helps, David, if you begin from reality. Your naked assertion that the UN's purpose is mediation falls flat on its presumptuous face in light of the evidence:

From the UN's charter:

We The Peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

Lofty goal, that, but no mention of exactly how they plan to go about it. File this under "Good Intentions."

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

Nope, no mediation there, and more fuzzy generalization on lofty goals. This clause establishes the UN as some kind of champion of a vaguely Marxian equalitarinaism.

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

Justice and respect are favorite fuzzywords of the international Left. One might almost assume there was some mediation involved here, but clarity is absent.

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

And now we start into the parts of the charter that globalists like the best. Social progress is a wonderful umbrella concept for all sorts of action that overtakes sovereignty and nationalism. Oh, and still no goal of mediation.

and for these ends

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

More mush, still no mediation.

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

Here come the blue helmets. Some globalist elements believe mediation to be the imposition of conditions that the elite have determined to be best for "the common good." That almost always happens by force, by the way.

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

And there are the weasel words that allow the UN elite to abandon dialog and enter into subjective force. You can file this under "anti-mediation."

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

There we go, in the end they abandon any pretense and expose their globalist Marxian goals for all to see.

The UN's idea of mediation has nothing to do with maintaining sovereignty. In fact, national sovereignty is seen as an impediment to the UN's lofty (but fuzzy) goals. Read the UN's papers on international "abortion rights" and suffrage if you want a lesson on their opinion of national sovereignty. Your assertion that the UN abhors mandated solutions is specious and false.

3. The great mistake of the US dominated Security Council leading up to the current war in Iraq was the adoption of the role of enforcer. That is not its purpose nor can it ever be successful in that role.

The Security Council has always had the role of enforcer, so I don't even know what this means. The US went into Iraq over the objections of the UN. Nice try at association, though. Finally, "US dominated" is anti-American hyperbole. The US can hardly dominate the Security Council when half a dozen nations have a veto.

4. To read Mr Brenneis' thoughts, it appears that he sees no value in any alliances. That to enter into mutual agreements is to head down the proverbial slippery slope towards some form of world communism. Obviously in his view, the only way to maintain order is for the one with the biggest stick to dictate terms to everyone else. The current state of affairs shows how well this idea works. Not to mention it simply is uncivilized.

You seem to have a great deal of confidence in your skills as a psychic, David. Too bad it is unwarranted. No rational mind could possibly read any of that into any comment I have ever made here. As well, you seem to be unable to differentiate between alliance and interference. Forcefully herding national populations into global socialist structures cannot be mistaken for alliance. Alliance only occurs in the presence of mutual respect for sovereignty. The international Left harbors no such respect.

5. The recognition that differences in perspective and competing interests exist, that mutually acceptable compromises can be negotiated, and that this is an evolutionary process, is the basis for having the U.N.

So you say, David. The UN seems to have a different view. See their charter, above. Naked assertion and wishful thinking do not equal reality.

Brenneis apparently rejects each of these premises and is resigned to a world of war and distrust. That is his sour prerogative. I prefer to live with a greater level of optimism and hope for a world in which wars like the current one do not occur.

Once again, David rides his little logical bicycle off into the tall grass. David, like so many other Democrats/Liberals/Leftists, establishes his own predicates and then assigns everyone who doesn't share his world view to their results. Unfortunately for him, the evidence doesn't support his predicates and all he is left with is illogical rhetoric. David and his ilk attempt to build a utopian world where appeasement and good intentions win the day and everyone suddenly drops their own goals and desires to work for the common good. The trouble with that vision is that David and his friends wish to define the common good and find themselves bewildered when faced with a competing group having the same desire to define it. I live in a world of reality, where competing interests are a given and the road to peaceful coexistence lies parallel to that of mutual respect through mutual strength and sovereignty. If that's a sour prerogative, then so be it, but I don't find myself disappointed regularly when the world fails to conform to some grandiose illusion I have created out of nothing but good intentions.