Replies

Nothing inherently wrong with affluence. It's all how you handle it in your brain and if you stay 'sharp and hungry' or not, as a result. That's what I think this author says, and I would like to see a counter argument that this is not going to be a problem for us over the protracted long haul.

Some of the most impatient Americans I have come across haven't a trace of affluence. Visited a Democrat-laden trailer park recently? Experienced the atmosphere of 'patience' and 'concentrated, strategic thinking'?

Hillary Clinton is only the latest of many Democrats to urge that the U.N. be given a larger role in postwar Iraq. Of course, neither she nor her Democratic colleagues have explained how we would go about doing this, given that the U.N. has largely pulled up stakes and abandoned Iraq until the security situation is improved. By us.

More fundamental, however, is the fact that the U.N. is essentially hostile to American interests and values. It would be unprecedented in human history for a nation to cede control over its foreign policy, voluntarily, to a hostile group of foreign nations.

For statistical proof of how antagonistic the United Nations is to our interests, see this article titled "U.N. General Assembly Voting Habits" by Fred Gedrich of the Freedom Alliance. Gedrich uses as raw material the State Department report on U.N. voting practices which Congress requires the Department to produce; here are the figures for 2002:

"187 UN General Assembly members, out of 90 votes cast, voted against U.S. positions by a 69 percent to 31 percent margin on issues such as terrorism, arms control, human rights and the Middle East.

"The 114 members of the Non-aligned Movement voted against U.S. supported positions 78 percent of the time. This group includes all the world’s dictatorships and terrorist states. It considers Cuba’s Castro, Libya’s Gadhafi and Syria’s Assad heroes.

"The 22 members of the League of Arab States voted against U.S. supported positions 83 percent of the time.

"The 56 members of the Islamic Conference voted against U.S. supported positions 79 percent of the time. "The 53 members of the African Union voted against U.S. supported positions 80 percent of the time.

"And what about votes cast by the United States so-called European Union friends? These 15 weak-kneed allies collectively voted against the United States more than 50 percent of the time."

Are there any bright spots in the State Department report? One, at least: Israel voted with the U.S. 93% of the time.

As the Democrats try to find grounds to criticize President Bush with admitting that what they really want is to abandon the war on terror altogether, they will likely focus on "greater cooperation with the U.N." as a campaign mantra. Putting aside that President Bush has, if anything, invested too much time and energy in trying to secure the cooperation of the U.N., the Democrats should be confronted with the reality that the U.N. is, as Gedrich describes it, a "morally bankrupt and corrupt institution because it serves as a safe haven and mouthpiece for some of the world’s most sinister forces."

Why on God's green earth should we allow a hostile organization to dictate our foreign policy?

If the author believes half of what he is writing, he would have to support a policy of bringing the 'boys back home' and focus on an internal solution (closed borders, decentralized government, radically reduced size of government, a well-armed citizenry...) to the problem rather than an external solution (build welfare states in the Middle East.)

It's the difference between loving your country and loathing it.

I think he is just a hack who gets a speaking fee from Bendor Associates.