Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When, exactly, was U.N. ever relevant?
The Detroit News ^ | March 5, 2003 | Thomas Bray

Posted on 03/05/2003 12:38:24 PM PST by CharacterCounts

Edited on 05/07/2004 7:09:14 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

If the United Nations doesn't back the latest resolution imposing a strict deadline on Saddam Hussein, says President Bush, it will render itself "irrelevant." But was there ever a reason to think a bureaucratic blob of 178 nations, most of whom wouldn't know democracy if they fell over it, could ever be terribly relevant?


(Excerpt) Read more at detnews.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: leagueofnations; unfrance
The Ethiopia invasion showed the fatal weakness of the multilateral approach favored by liberals then and now. When Mussolini's intentions became clear, the British boldly declared their support for taking action -- but only if the other members of the league would agree to do their share. The French refused even to vote for economic sanctions, much less military action.

History repeats.

1 posted on 03/05/2003 12:38:25 PM PST by CharacterCounts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts
High time to get out of UN and get the UN out of the US. Before our sovereignty and ability to protect ourselves from the hordes of international leftists who dominate the world body is irretrievably compromised.
2 posted on 03/05/2003 12:42:36 PM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Couldn't agree more.

Notice how France played the obstructionist role with Ethiopia and then totally capitulated in the ensuing war.

3 posted on 03/05/2003 12:47:28 PM PST by CharacterCounts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts
Does anyone have stats? What percentage of the UN's member countries are dictatorships?
4 posted on 03/05/2003 12:53:21 PM PST by Michael Sidiropoulos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts
We don't know if the story is true, but I believe it likely to be true. In the course of his conquest of the Persian empire, while in the city of Gordion in Anatolia (now Turkey, then peopled by Indo-European Hittites, semitic people and colonies of free Greeks), he confronted the Gordion Knot, a rope tied in a mystifying knot. The Gordion Knot was in the courtyard of the temple to Zeus in the Acropolis of Gordion. It was said that the man who could untie the knot would become ruler of all Asia.

Many had tried and failed to untie the knot, and Alexander's generals were undoubtedly a bit nervous about the bad mojo that would result if Alexander failed in the task. In fact, it was a bold move to enter Gordion and attempt the feat, for failure would demoralize an army that was highly superstitious.

Alexander walked up to the acropolis, entered the temple and stood before the knot, deep in thought. Presently, he spoke. "It doesn't matter how the knot is loosened". He drew his sword, cutting the rope and thereby achieving an untying of the knot.

It's time for us to cut the Gordion Knot that is UN politics. We can have Colin Powell try to untangle the diplomatic wishes of Cameroon, Mexico and Angola. Or we can unsheath our sword, cut through that morass of filth and stench, and do what we wish to do.

Alexander went on to conquer Asia (at least, the part that was known to the Greeks, and some parts beyond). Let's cut our own Gordion Knot and be done with Iraq, the UN, and the terrorists beyond.

5 posted on 03/05/2003 12:54:35 PM PST by Defiant (Guarding San Diego from terrorist attack as a human shield.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts
Has France forgot that they are called France today because of America?
6 posted on 03/05/2003 12:55:07 PM PST by MidAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts
Relevant? Not then, not now, not ever!
7 posted on 03/05/2003 12:55:11 PM PST by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheik yerbouty
The author also makes a good case for unilateralism in my opinion.
8 posted on 03/05/2003 12:59:55 PM PST by CharacterCounts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts
and how many of these over dressed clowns represent elected govenments?

so why does this crowd get a vote on what my elected officials choose to do IN MY NAME?

We should get out of the UN (and make them pay for all of their parking tickets before they leave)

.

9 posted on 03/05/2003 1:03:47 PM PST by Elle Bee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts
PULLING THE PLUG (( firehat // code red ))

"The United Nations is a rectal threshold through which ill-mannered guests egress, but never go home."

"Any guest that treats you as discourteously in your own home . . .

deserves to get his .. .. .. *** kicked (( link )) - - -

all the way back to the Third World - and possibly to the Fourth."

*** . . . my addition !

The UN is a collection of dysfunctional and blackmailed countries ganging up on the successful !

10 posted on 03/05/2003 1:06:12 PM PST by f.Christian (( + God =Truth + love courage // LIBERTY logic + SANITY + Awakening + ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
The UN has performed its function acceptably on only 2 occasions. Once, when the Soviets walked out of the UN in a huff, the US was able to get its resolutions passed that created the UN mandate to defend South Korea from attack by the North. When the Soviets came back, it was too late; the US could veto any effort to undo what the US had done. Thus, the Korean conflict was a UN war.

The second time was in the first Gulf War, right after the end of the cold war. The Soviet power still had to be respected, and the process gave us a way to get what we wanted with the Soviets going along.

There was some utility to the UN during the cold war, as it gave a way for the 2 opposing sides to have some dialogue with each other and was a vehicle that might not have existed had there been only embassies. But, the UN was set up in 1945 with rules that presupposed an alliance of the large powers with good will and common interest in world peace, and allowed some input from the lesser powers in the process. The cold war ensured that it would become a debating society for the most part, except with respect to some limited areas where both sides agreed.

After the cold war ended, there was some hope that the UN could fulfill more of its original goal of policing world conflicts where the US interest was not implicated. That did not come about, and in the age of terrorism, where the main role of the UN has been to hog-tie the US and limit its power, the UN is no longer either necessary, and is in fact, detrimental to US interests, insofar as its opposition to US policies causes useful idiots to oppose the war on terror at home and in allies.

The UN should be kept as a debating society, but the US should never again submit an issue with national security implications to the security council. New organizations, formed only with like-minded democracies, should be created over the next few year, which will be charged with the fight against terror and rogue states, and perhaps later, with taking care of horrible dictators who don't directly threaten us, like Mugabe.

11 posted on 03/05/2003 1:06:53 PM PST by Defiant (Guarding San Diego from terrorist attack as a human shield.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts
When, exactly, was U.N. ever relevant?

Easy: Never.

12 posted on 03/05/2003 1:08:50 PM PST by FourtySeven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts
UN relevant only once....summer 1950.
13 posted on 03/05/2003 1:12:27 PM PST by wtc911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
The second time was in the first Gulf War, right after the end of the cold war. The Soviet power still had to be respected, and the process gave us a way to get what we wanted with the Soviets going along.

My take on the author's logic is that the UN restriction placed on the Gulf War resolution created the situation we are in today and we would have been better off ignoring the UN in 1991.

14 posted on 03/05/2003 1:33:20 PM PST by CharacterCounts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
The UN should be kept as a debating society, but the US should never again submit an issue with national security implications to the security council.

I disagree that it should even be kept. As long as it exists in any form, it will try to exert its worthless will on the world and stick its nose where it doesn't belong. It's useless IMO on every level, as is any organization that attempts to equate the voice of entities whose goals and means are not remotely equal or compatiable and can never hope to be. The thought that the United States, on a matter of national security for 250,000,000 people, should be running around begging for votes from Angola and Cameroon, sums up the ludicrous nature of the organization. The world is not a democracy and it's never going to be.

MM

MM

15 posted on 03/05/2003 1:39:54 PM PST by MississippiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts
It is true that UN restrictions on the scope of the First Gulf War were a big factor in why we did not finish the job. Unfortunately, I don't think we could have gone it alone back then, if the Soviets (which they still were then) had opposed us, and the UN allowed us a forum to get them to go along. We did the best we could with the geopolitical realities as they existed.

Fast forward 12 years. Now, we don't give a damn what the Russians say. We have grown massively more powerful, while they have waned tremendously. In fact, if it weren't for their nukes, they would not give us much trouble. Unless we attack them directly, they won't start a war with us. Hell, the states on their border that were in their Warsaw Pact are now part of Nato, and, until they started jacking us around on this Iraq war, there was talk of making the Russians allies, too. (We will eventually need an alliance with Russia to deal with China.) So, it's a much different situation.

Now, since we don't need the Russians, we don't need the "good offices" of the UN to help us put together a coalition to get Saddam.

16 posted on 03/05/2003 3:24:19 PM PST by Defiant (Guarding San Diego from terrorist attack as a human shield.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan
I disagree that it should even be kept. As long as it exists in any form, it will try to exert its worthless will on the world and stick its nose where it doesn't belong.

Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.

Having all these tinhorns in NY yakking at each other can do some harm, but if we keep them occupied with a few minor projects we can avoid major damage. Shut down the UN entirely, and these same nutballs will set up shop in Paris or Vienna, and be even whackier than when they are here, enjoying NY, constrained just a little by the fact that their organization depends on us.

17 posted on 03/05/2003 3:40:29 PM PST by Defiant (Guarding San Diego from terrorist attack as a human shield.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts
He sure does!
18 posted on 03/05/2003 4:07:53 PM PST by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Bump for a little British - French history.
19 posted on 03/05/2003 4:24:27 PM PST by CharacterCounts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson