America “superfluous”

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:30 am

Those who’ve been following The Diplomad’s excellent coverage of UN inertia in tsunami-hammered SE Asia will be entertained by this remark from the BBC’s Peter Marshall:

The Asian tsunami has provided a perfect example of the need for an effective UN under an activist Secretary General. This time Kofi Annan was quick off the mark and America’s independent efforts soon looked superfluous.

(Via the Corner)

Posted by Tim B. on 01/17/2005 at 12:24 AM
    1. With all this whining about “stinginess” and all that don’t be surprised if there ends up being TOO MUCH money donated.

      I’m no expert tho, so ignore this comment for a few years.

      Posted by Josh on 01/17 at 12:55 AM • #


    1. I’ll bet America’s independent efforts didn’t look superfluous to all those survivors who had no other aid for days and days.

      As for too much money donated, Josh, I’m sure the UN will find a use for it.

      Posted by Retread on 01/17 at 01:03 AM • #


    1. Without the United Nations, where would needy tsunami victims get Lingonberries?

      Posted by iowahawk on 01/17 at 01:39 AM • #


    1. Wow, another little island of sanity out there!  As, to Mr. Marshall’s comment: Does anyone believe his bullshit? IOW, is the average moonbat on the street buying into it?

      Posted by jooly on 01/17 at 02:01 AM • #


    1. That’s not what Governor Bush saw:

      Tonight, I saw the Norwegian guy who heads the disaster operation at the UN. He was speaking as though his agency was in charge of the Banda Ache operation. In fact, we saw no one from the United Nations on the ground.

      Posted by Donnah on 01/17 at 02:23 AM • #


    1. Is this for real? Does he really think those aircraft carriers and helicopters and troops were from the UN? Seriously?

      Posted by Dave S. on 01/17 at 02:49 AM • #


    1. Seems to me the only superflous item here is Secretary Annan and his Toyota Taliban.

      Posted by Abu Qa’Qa on 01/17 at 02:51 AM • #


    1. “With all this whining about “stinginess” and all that don’t be surprised if there ends up being TOO MUCH money donated.”

      Don’t worry – the UN will skim off the fat so the amount will be too small in the end.

      Posted by jorgen on 01/17 at 03:46 AM • #


    1. Obviously this is a meaning of ‘superfluous’ with which I was previously aware.

      Posted by basil on 01/17 at 04:21 AM • #


    1. Maybe “fluous” means “fluid; adaptable; able to react quickly to chaotic circumstances.” So, yes, we’re super-fluous.

      Posted by Dave S. on 01/17 at 05:07 AM • #


    1. This is the same BBC that has claimed US helicopters were hindering the relief effort because their downwash was disturbing people on the ground.

      Umm, that’s what helicopters do…

      Posted by Rob on 01/17 at 05:26 AM • #


    1. These people are so desperate to justify themselves, they blurt out anything.  And they don’t realize what they’ve said until it’s too late.

      It’s enough to warm the cockles of my heart.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 01/17 at 06:07 AM • #


    1. Just imagine the adjectives Peter Marshall would use if he takes the time to look across the body of water to the east.

      Posted by Dusty on 01/17 at 06:37 AM • #


    1. Yeah Kofi had his aircraft carrier and task force there in no time flat.

      Posted by raider580 on 01/17 at 10:24 AM • #


    1. What planet is this idiot from?
      Maybe some of the money siphoned off from the U.N.’s oil for food program paid for such a glowing…yet patently stupid…endorsement. I can think of no other RATIONAL explanation. Even the virtuous Kofi Annan himself, stated quite openly just a week ago, that the U.N. has no assests of its own and, is therefore, powerless to act without the assistance of its member States…namely the United States!

      Posted by Brian on 01/17 at 10:35 AM • #



      Oh, wait….  You mean he was serious?

      Posted by Barbara Skolaut on 01/17 at 10:48 AM • #


    1. Superflupus are we?

      Isolationism is a perennial temptation for Americans, even those of us who know how important active international involvment can be to America’s security.  The condescending snobbishness and irrational disdain for the US on the part of so many around the world is feeding that feelling.  I think Dubya is likely to be the most internationalist and multilateralist President of the US for the next fifty years (too many people in Old Europe overlooked the incipient isolationist sentiments in Kerry’s campaign).  After 2009 some people are likely to learn just how superfluous America really is, and they won’t like it one bit, especially after the vultures start to swoop down.

      Posted by Michael Lonie on 01/17 at 10:50 AM • #


    1. This should be part of a “Guess who made the following idiotic statements” competition.
      I for one would have gotten that one right!

      Posted by davo on 01/17 at 01:59 PM • #


  1. Superfluous?  Don’t they have a dictionary at the BBC?  He must have meant that America soon looked supercalifragilisticexpialidocious?

    Yesterday I read an article in the French press bemoaning the fact that they had not even one helicopter to use to tsunami relief.  They had to rent some from the Russians??

    Made my day.  Couldn’t stop smiling.  How many helicopters does the BBC have I wonder?

    Posted by blerp on 01/18 at 08:49 AM • #