Bret Stephens wrote a confusing article under the title:
“John Bolton Is Right About the U.N.,” published on March 23, 2018. David
French wrote a superficial article under the title: “John Bolton Isn't
Dangerous. The World Is,” also published on March 23, 2018 in National Review
Online”.
As can be seen from the titles, both writers are discussing
the appointment of John Bolton to the post of National Security Adviser in America . Both
writers like the appointment, and both took on the task of defending Bolton against the perception that he is too hawkish and
too dangerous to be in that position.
Bret Stephens –– who considers the United Nations (UN) to be
more satanic towards Israel than Iran's Ahmadinejad considered Israel to be
satanic towards the human race –– decided to defend Bolton's attacks on the
United Nations. As to his own views, he says that the UN is scandal itself
disguised as hope; and that's because the world body relies on collective
security to maintain peace when in his view, “collective security is a recipe
for international paralysis or worse”.
He attributes the UN's failures to mismanagement,
corruption, abuse and moral perversity. He gives as examples, a cholera
epidemic in Haiti
that was caused by peacekeepers. Allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation
that were committed by peacekeepers. A Rwanda genocide that the UN failed
to prevent. A Srebrenica massacre it failed to stop. A Sri Lanka and a South Sudan
wars it failed to prevent.
So we ask: “How bad is that?” and recall the vignette of the
man that bumped into his friend and asked: “How's your wife?” In response, the
friend asked: “Compared to what?” And so, we are tempted to ask: How bad is the
UN compared to the U.S. and Israel , the two
countries that Bret Stephens holds as models of perfection to the rest of the
world. In fact, someone posed that question already though differently, as
reported by Stephens. Here is how he put it: “Imagine if the U.N. was going to
the United States
and bringing cholera, Mario Joseph, a Haitian lawyer told the A.P.”
In terms of performance, to compare the UN against the US
Congress is to compare a Cadillac against a jalopy. In terms of honesty, to
compare the UN operations against the various prime ministers of Israel
is to compare a run-of-the-mill car salesman against a Bernie Madoff Ponzi
scheme. To compare the sexual abuses of the UN peacekeepers against those in
the US
military against its own recruits is to compare the activities of a peeping Tom
on a campus dormitory against those of Harvey Weinstein. To compare the
shortcomings of the UN in Haiti
against the shortcomings of the US Veteran's Administration is to compare the
error of an overworked doctor to the crimes of a serial killer holding a
medical degree. And the list goes on.
If you want to measure how much America
fails its own people compared to how much the UN fails the peoples of the
world, remember that in terms of population, the world is 25 times bigger than America . That
is, ask how many die of drug overdose in America , for example. If the answer
is 40,000, multiply that by 25 and this would be the equivalent of 40,000 X 25
= 1,000,000. That's a million. This done, check how many in the world die from
drug overdose and you'll know who's better at running the shop under its
jurisdiction: The US or the UN.
Do the same thing with regard to the murder rate, the school
shootings, the rapes, the child abuses and so on; and you'll never again read
an article like that of Bret Stephens without getting sick to the stomach at
the gall of a guy that's trying to mess up your head. You'll be galled even
more when you realize that he is doing all this because the UN is refusing to
serve his Jewish agenda the way that the U.S. Congress does.
As to David French, it is clear from his article why he
says: “It is time to give a hawk a chance.” Call it the “Appeasement Syndrome.”
That “derangement” goes back to the time when Neville Chamberlain returned home
to Britain after visiting
Hitler who convinced him that Germany
had no intention of attacking anyone. And so, Chamberlain proclaimed that peace
was at hand … but was proven wrong by history.
The hawks that David French has in mind were brainwashed –
by the proclamations of Winston Churchill – into believing that everyone who
tries to develop a military that's powerful enough to threaten the United States , must be as evil as Hitler, and
will attack America
as soon as he has the chance. For this reason, America must not only contain
someone like that, it must destroy him before he gets too powerful, say the
hawks.
That is precisely what John Bolton has been saying he
believes. So we must ask: Is this a sign of wisdom, or is it a sign of
insanity?
To answer that question, we recall that in response to
Churchill's proclamations, the Americans fought a bitter war in Vietnam lest the communists become too powerful
and attack America .
Well, America
lost that war, but the communists did not attack it. On the contrary, the
Vietnamese communists became good friends with the Americans and remain so to
this day.
That reality does more than demolish Churchill's theory; it
tells the world that if there is a Hitler-like evil to fear in this world, it
is America .
That's because it is manipulated by the Jews who wish to revive the dark age of
colonialism. As demonstrated in the Bret Stephens article, the Jews are
constantly nudging America
to attack someone, and America
has responded by starting a new war at the rate of one every two years.