Why didn't I think of that?
You sure have to hand it to the UN. The organization is so ridiculous it is simply impossible to parody it anymore. They have to be trying to be this dumb. The latest?
Our good friend Hans Blix, last seen being fed to sharks by Kim Jong-Il in "Team America World Police," has lead a UN study that recently produced a 227-page report - after a two-year "probe" costing untold millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund who knows what corrupt bureaucrats on expense accounts to do the most important kind of nothing - finding, ta da, that nuclear weapons should be illegal. And the AP is taking this seriously.
Of all the great thinkers the world has produced since 1945, you would think someone would have made the simple logical connection: 1) nuclear weapons are bad, 2) bad things should be illegal, 3) nuclear weapons should be illegal. Thank god Hans Blix, his team and his 227 page report (nuclear weapons are bad, m'kay) finally got around to solving that "if p then q, p therefore q" syllogism.
Now that Hans (where's Franz?) has enlightened the world with his thoroughly researched and documented 227 page report, where else can this logic lead? How about terrorism? Terrorism = bad, right? I think that is the UN's official position. Let's outlaw it! Problem solved!
Quoting from the AP article now, "Blix said countries that make a commitment to nonproliferation should be given assurances 'that if they do away with these weapons they will not be attacked by nuclear weapons by anyone — and we think that is important.'" I certainly see how that would be important and why Hans would think that. After all, what good is unilateral disarmament without assurances that you won't be attacked? I would make sure that each hostile country at least did a pinkie swear, but more likely make them swear on the grave of some dead relative, preferably their grandmother.
Sarcasm turned of now. The only reason why I think we keep funding the UN, and keep it in New York, is the very practical maxim "keep your friends close, keep your enemies even closer." Is a few billion dollars a year to pay international bureaucrats to drive limos, rack up umpteen jillion parking tickets, clog up fine restaurants, and churn out 227-page "studies" all that much considering what those same people would otherwise be doing? It would warm my heart for a moment if we pulled out of the UN, stopped giving it money and kicked them out. Then I would realize what they would do untethered from the American tax payer's teat.
Our good friend Hans Blix, last seen being fed to sharks by Kim Jong-Il in "Team America World Police," has lead a UN study that recently produced a 227-page report - after a two-year "probe" costing untold millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund who knows what corrupt bureaucrats on expense accounts to do the most important kind of nothing - finding, ta da, that nuclear weapons should be illegal. And the AP is taking this seriously.
Of all the great thinkers the world has produced since 1945, you would think someone would have made the simple logical connection: 1) nuclear weapons are bad, 2) bad things should be illegal, 3) nuclear weapons should be illegal. Thank god Hans Blix, his team and his 227 page report (nuclear weapons are bad, m'kay) finally got around to solving that "if p then q, p therefore q" syllogism.
Now that Hans (where's Franz?) has enlightened the world with his thoroughly researched and documented 227 page report, where else can this logic lead? How about terrorism? Terrorism = bad, right? I think that is the UN's official position. Let's outlaw it! Problem solved!
Quoting from the AP article now, "Blix said countries that make a commitment to nonproliferation should be given assurances 'that if they do away with these weapons they will not be attacked by nuclear weapons by anyone — and we think that is important.'" I certainly see how that would be important and why Hans would think that. After all, what good is unilateral disarmament without assurances that you won't be attacked? I would make sure that each hostile country at least did a pinkie swear, but more likely make them swear on the grave of some dead relative, preferably their grandmother.
Sarcasm turned of now. The only reason why I think we keep funding the UN, and keep it in New York, is the very practical maxim "keep your friends close, keep your enemies even closer." Is a few billion dollars a year to pay international bureaucrats to drive limos, rack up umpteen jillion parking tickets, clog up fine restaurants, and churn out 227-page "studies" all that much considering what those same people would otherwise be doing? It would warm my heart for a moment if we pulled out of the UN, stopped giving it money and kicked them out. Then I would realize what they would do untethered from the American tax payer's teat.
posted by Ben at 7:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home