CONGO "REDEPLOYMENT" OF "PEACE-KEEPERS" PROVES THAT THE U.N. STANDS FOR "USELESS & NEEDLESS"

NYTIMES:

Battles between forces loyal to President Joseph Kabila and those of his main campaign rival raged for second day Monday, and U.N. peacekeepers safely evacuated foreign diplomats who had been trapped inside the challenger's besieged home when gunfire broke out.

U.N. spokesman Jean-Tobias Okala said the diplomats, including U.N. chief of mission William Swing, were being returned to the world body's offices in the capital, Kinshasa, after being evacuated from Bemba's compound by U.N. troops in armored personnel carriers.

YEAH: You read that right: the UN is FLEEING just as violence breaks out. And instead of keeping the peace, all the UN "peace-keepers are doing is assisting the cowards to flee. SHEESH: What the heck were they sent there to do, pimp?! Er um, yes.

8/22 UPDATE: Some 400 extra European Union troops are being flown into the Democratic Republic of Congo capital, Kinshasa, in a bid to quell raging gun battles. [Reliapundit: 400!? That's all!? OBVIOUSLY: they're not serius, but it's better than nothing!]

I think this proves - once again - that the UN is a freakin' joke. It should be abolished.

I mean, what's the friggin point of even passing UNSCR's like #1441 and #1559 and #1701 if there's either no will to actually enforce them, or if those who actually DO try to enforce them - like the USA vis a vis #1441 and Israel vis a vis #1559 - are met with widespread derision!?

Only post-modern Leftists like the UN and think it's important. WHY?! Because post modern Leftists do not believe that there are any universal/absolute/trascendent values; they believe that all values are culturally relative; they are moral relativists. And this is why post modern Leftists believe that the only basis for international intervention is if there's a unanimous cross-cultural/international consensus - and that's what they think the UN is for.

The problem is that such a consensus is almost always IMPOSSIBLE to achieve; hence Rwanda, Darfur, etc., etc., etc., and so forth. And lets add Congo and south Lebanon to the mix , too.

Conservatives believe in Natural Law, and in universal human rights. And we believe that international intervention to preserve peoples' human rights is a moral imperative: we should help all our brothers and sisters everywhere achieve their innate human rights, whenever and wherever we can, using the most effective means at our disposal.

Conservatives don't think universality is arrived at by consensus, nor that right and wrong can ever be determined by taking polls. What is right and wrong is true for all people everywhere - that's the essence of universality, and FDR and Eleanor - to old-time libs - and JFK believed in it lock, stock and barrel. That's why they were fearless fighters for universal human rights.

Moral relativism is, compared to universalism, a morally bankrupt philosophy. It is amoral at best - probably really even immoral.

And moral relativism has another side-effect: it's why post-modern Leftists are appeasers: Because they don't have any values worth dying for so they appease their threatening foes. This is why they so easily become a Fifth Column for the enemy.

When Murtha and Dean and Kerry and Lamont and Sheehan call for the "redeployment" of US troops out of Iraq, they want us to do what the UN is doing in the Congo: THEY WANT US TO CUT AND RUN.