Regular price: $26.60
Buy Now with 1 Credit
Buy Now for $26.60
This is an extremely important book; fascinating and full of essential information for understanding international affairs in today's world. A knowledge of UN history enables one to sift through increasingly biased news reports to get a grasp of reality. Looking around today's world, fingerprints of the UN's attitude of moral equivalency are everywhere. UN history is also a good example of the effects of corruption in places of unchecked power. To say that this book is essential is putting it mildly. Its content covers a political arena in which our electorate needs much education. This is a life changing book...take advantage!
2 of 2 people found this review helpful
Why did "The Killing Fields" Pol Pot never face a tribunal?
Why didn't the UN take action on Rawanda, Somalia, or much else?
Dore Gold (author of the excellent "Hatred's Kingdom") writes a very timely book. A very profound book. Moral Equivalency is not tolerance, it rings the death knell of Western Civilization.
Gold answers the questions and puts forward a strong case that The U.N. is not benign.
This book is a News Hound's delight.
Robertson Dean narrates perfectly.Buy this book! You'll be glad you did!
29 of 43 people found this review helpful
Would you try another book written by Dore Gold or narrated by Robertson Dean?
No. The author likely has some personal vendetta against the United Nations, as they do not look at the situation in an unbiased light/
Has Tower of Babble put you off other books in this genre?
No. This is a standout horror in the genre.
What aspect of Robertson Dean’s performance might you have changed?
It was very grand and impressive, and he has a good voice for these sort of things.
What reaction did this book spark in you? Anger, sadness, disappointment?
Anger and irritation. I had expected a balanced analysis of the problems of the UN, or even a rubbishing account which gave a decent summary of some of the weaknesses of the organisation. Instead I got a book which suggested that George Bush was taking on the mantle his father had left him, an utterly absurd statement as he is the president of the united states and should be acting for the country and not because of his father's legacy. It rubbished the UN again and again and its sensationalist writing only made me think that the author must be trying to deliberately misguide readers - it's common courtesy to at least give the opposite side of the argument and then refute it. Instead the book barely touches on anything but its supposed damming account of the United Nations, making it sound more absurd than accurate.
Any additional comments?
The author should try writing a book which people may actually believe.