Click The Logo To Donate
Posted on 04/14/2003 12:21:37 PM PDT by Chirodoc
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:02:37 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
For several months, the United Nations has been at the center of sharp public and diplomatic debate over how best to disarm Iraq and ensure international security. In the process, the U.N. has been called everything from indispensable to irrelevant. Come what may, it is in the global and American interest to prevent the current crisis and its associated rhetoric from undermining the United Nations as a platform for peace, collective security and common progress.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
There's nothing quite like an unsupported false premise to start an equally baseless argument.
This should have been in the headline, not at the end of the article. Sheesh.
Classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. There has also not been a world war since the invention of the miracle bra, saran wrap, transistor radios, or Scooby Doo.
They and the UN are all equally relevant to the prospects for peace.
(Actually, they're all more relevant than the U.N., now that I think about it.)
Um, let's see....to keep bad comedians in business??
To keep millions of otherwise unemployable socialists busy?
LOL! It's not that the UN is imperfect. You might as well use that defense for Saddam. (You can't expect a dictator to be perfect!) The problem is that the UN is a failure in every part of their function outside of giving (mostly Western) aid. The problem is that the UN is seen as an avenue for resolving problems, when it has to do so even once. The problem is that the UN promotes a Progressive idyll (as evidenced by America's shouldering of the lion's share of the burdens). The problem is that every dictator, despot, and oppressive ruling junta has the same authority as proven peaceful democracies. The problem is that it is depresingly common for the despots to outvote the nations that promote the rights of humans in many important ways. The problem is that UN officials feel that they are above the laws of NY, which promotes the idea of a tiered or stratified system where the rules are different for those entrusted with authority. The problem is that the UN fails to use the guidance of proven liberating and just nations, and forces the leadership positions into the hands of those who represent despotic, inept, or corrupt nations. The problem is that the UN has become a clearing-house for all those nations who want to see the failure of the US, simply because the US is on top and they are not. The problem is that the UN is trying to resurrect a failed ideology (Socialism) to usurp a successful one (capitalism coupled with individual freedoms).
It's also prevented aliens from landing on Earth and enslaving the human race. Don't see any alien slave masters, do ya?
We will need the United Nations Children Fund, the World Food Program and a host of other capabilities,
Sure, let's use the charity components of the UN.
Beyond humanitarian relief, the United Nations is likely to be called upon — as it has been after brutal conflicts in Kosovo, East Timor and elsewhere
Bosnia, Rwanda? oops
to help maintain the peace by setting the foundation for the rule of law, democracy and civilian control of government
And most importantly, socialism and birth control. (Sorry, my one-liners are becoming a little flippant, it's hard to take this whole thing seriously :)
Hours after the horrendous attacks of September 11, 2001, the United Nations adopted resolutions expressing solidarity with the United States
Wow, resolutions! And we all know how meaningful the UN's "resolutions" are.
We cannot ignore the fact that European opinion polls indicate substantial levels of fear and distrust of the United States.
Who's "ignoring" this fact? I make fun of the ridiculous opinions of Frenchmen all the time.
Allies with whom we have shed blood and toiled on behalf of freedom and prosperity are bitterly opposed not only to our Iraq policy, but also a seemingly cavalier dismissal of the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change,
Who says it was "seemingly cavalier"? The author? It was a dumb-ass treaty (oh sorry "Protocol") and our Senate rejected it with no dissenters.
the Children's Treaty
Never heard of it.
and the Land Mine Treaty,
What about it?
to name a few
He means, "to name three". It's always three; if they can name three things that Europeans Think We Should Have Signed, they've got a paragraph. That's how they learned to write paragraphs in school, you see. You need three supporting sentences. That's the only reason I can think of why they always name three dumb-ass things.
What really ticks me off is that this List Of Three (usually it's (1) Kyoto (2) Durban conference on racism (3) land-mines) is always tossed off with no explanation for why the treaties themselves were intrinsically good. We should have signed those treaties not because they were good things to sign, but because "Europeans" (i.e. socialist bureaucrats) wanted us to. The fact that no one is ever willing to try to make the actual argument for why the treaties were intrinsically worth signing, in and of themselves really says something.
Finally, we will want and the world will need the United Nations to respond in future crises.
Yes, but they don't.
The Iraqi disarmament debate has elicited intense, often bitter debate. On matters of war — the gravest decision any nation or group of nations could take, especially in a region as volatile as the Middle East — who would want or expect anything less?
"Debate" I can handle, it was the outright campaigning (hey Cameroon, please vote against the US) and disingenuity (we're vetoing no matter what) by the French which was the last straw for me. There's nothing honest or sincere about such a "debate", the process was poisoned from the beginning.
It's true, I suppose, that I expected nothing less from the French.
the United States and all nations have an interest in maintaining the U.N. for the long term.
Believe it or not, I basically agree with this. But not for this guy's self-serving reasons ("Timothy E. Wirth ... is president of the United Nations Foundation"). I'm more of a "keep your enemies closer" kind of guy. In particular, if the UN sticks around, and the world's evil regimes think it is actually a meaningful institution (even though it's not), we will know what these people are up to and we can trick them into wasting their energies trying to sway the votes of Cameroon, instead of actually doing real things in the real world which could harm us. In fact look at what happened with Iraq: Saddam's behavior over the six months leading up to it was consistent with the idea that he thought the UN could actually stop the US from attacking!
It is to our advantage to perpetuate this delusion and keep it alive among the world's dictators.
It's GONE!!!
The problem is that the UN is seen as an avenue for resolving problems, when it has YET to do so even once.
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.
