The U.N.: Modern tower of Babel

There are two kinds of Americans, and I'm not referring to those who could or could not pick Paris Hilton out of a lineup of bimbos. No, I'm thinking of those two groups of people who have totally differing views of the United Nations.

On the one hand, there are those who think it is a vile aggregation of members who are up to their collective eyeballs in corruption. Just in recent years, we have seen them twiddle their thumbs while Saddam Hussein slaughtered thousands, and genocide was freely practiced in the Sudan and Rwanda. For good measure, there was the Oil for Food program, and the disgusting sex scandals involving U.N. representatives and African children.

TRENDING: Restaurant offers burglary suspect a job instead of pressing charges after he threw brick through door

On the credit side of the ledger, there's this to be said for the members of the organization: They never start something they don't finish. That would include not only their expense account breakfasts, lunches and dinners, but cocktails and between-meal snacks!

Basically, those who argue on behalf of the United Nations are liberals; those who abhor it, and who resent our tax dollars being used to keep this ship of fools afloat are conservatives. Assuming that everyone in the first group isn't a complete idiot, how to explain this division? Always one to give people the benefit of the doubt, I think it's because those on the left are both naive and idealistic. It's a dangerous combination. In the last century, it led any number of our fellow Americans to promote the big lie that the Soviet Union was heaven on earth. Because Joe Stalin and his savvy propagandists said all the right things about peace and universal brotherhood, these useful fools fell for it, hook, line and sickle!

Even when Stalin gobbled up Eastern Europe as if it were one enormous smorgasbord, American crackpots of the left-wing persuasion parroted his line about Mother Russia needing a geographical buffer. They didn't have anything much to say about what the half billion souls crushed under the Soviet boot needed. In retrospect, I guess Hitler's big mistake in conquering Poland, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Holland, France and Belgium was in not suggesting he was creating a buffer for Germany.

So it is when the folks at the United Nations start prattling about world peace, these mush heads eat it up with a large spoon. The fact that the United Nations has leveled scores of resolutions against Israel, while having rolled out the red carpet for a pistol-packing Yasser Arafat means nothing to them. They gag on ugly facts, preferring their beautiful fantasy of world justice adjudicated by the likes of Syria, China and North Korea. Sometimes, I swear, you get the idea that they live in a Disney universe where trees sing and dance, and squirrels talk, where wars need never be waged, and where the vilest tyrants only need to be given a time-out like a bratty 3-year-old in order to shape up.

These are the same folks who insist that President Bush is the greatest menace in the world because he insists on pursuing a policy of bringing democracy to as many places as he can. They ignore the fact that, at least so far as I'm aware, no two democracies have ever gone to war with each other.

If that isn't an ideal state of affairs, something all peace-loving people would support, I don't know what is.

On the other hand, if pressed, I'd be willing to make an exception to that rule where France is concerned!