Posted on 10/07/2004 4:43:10 PM PDT by MarlboroRed
Thanks for the ping!
Yes, the league of nations did not develop the UNs particualr version of communism called sustainable development. Sustainable development is now inculcated in every federal and most state agencies in the nation. Furthermore it is being pushed into the local level with local Agenda 21, smart growth, community plan and land use planning by viewshed, scenic view and watershed management.
The UN cannot be remade into anything that will not harm the US. As long as there is an organization with power over us that is populated by a majority of countries run by communists, dictators, socialists and other enemies of freedom, the United States should not take part.
PING
At your service!
Why would anyone even want to salvage it?
The UN isn't "useless", it's "dangerous"!
I'm not sure they would. But as I said, I do think that something on the order of the UN's original charter, which was essentially a meeting-place for discussion and consensus, would be extremely useful in a world with this very peculiar geopolitical alignment.
But the original charter was quickly forgotten in a rush of enthusiasm for world government by a self-proclaimed elite. At some point the emphasis was less on discussion and consensus and more on rule, and I cannot imagine what would have happened had the UN been given possession of all the nuclear weapons in the world or its own independent armed forces, both of which options were at one point more or less seriously discussed.
It is ironic that those who are at present pouring barrels of ink into lamenting that the U.S. is attempting to rule the world seem so insistent on effecting precisely that on behalf of an unelected, unaccountable, and provably corrupt UN. I suppose it's natural enough for a forum full of world leaders to expect to lead the world, and by extension, for a forum full of dictators to expect to be able to dictate. But that was never part of the deal.
As to why we should have a UN at all, there are a dozen cogent reasons for forming it in the first place that still apply. For one, it performs a point for coordinating disparate nations' aid efforts in time of natural disaster. For another, it should (although it does not at the present) constitute a neutral venue for parties in dispute to settle their differences short of war. For a third, it should constitute a means for collective efforts between nations to be coordinated on issues which should properly not fall under the direction of any individual nation - eradicating a disease, for example.
But not rule. And not a dinner table at which all the diners order their hearts' desire and pass the tab repeatedly to the same guy. And not a means for those who desire power to assume it without earning it and without being accountable to those over whom it is exercised.
I like the way you write, and admire your obvious intelligence and earnestness. I also agree with much of what you said. However, I disagree that there is any useful role for "a UN." I hit an absolute brick wall when I saw the phrase "collective efforts." No thanks.
I love Mark Steyn...he always nails it.
As usual, Steyn hits it out of the park.
Maybe Kofi was hoping to be King of the World, instead he is a snake in the grass, along with the other worthless folks that would take bribes.
UN is worthless, why is it here?
John F. Kerry's hopes for being elected president depend upon the thin thread of the President's determination to be polite. Thus far the Oil for Fraud (good term) program has largely been kept out of the US propaganda organs. If the President were to blow the lid off it by, for example, bringing it up in a nationally, nay globally televised debate, Kerry would be left without a leg to stand on.
This could actually happen. Duelfer's report went rather far afield to include documentation of UNron's (another great term) involvement in the Greatest Fraud In History. I don't think it would have been included with out the Presiden't approval, perhaps even his direction. It's in the report. There's no reason to bring it up when the Dork starts talking about the allies tonight. I don't really expect this to happen because nothing this dramatic ever seems to happen when you expect it. But it could.
Here's some more food for thought. There's been talk of an October Surprise. I've been wondering why there was so much bribery of French, German, Russian, and even British elements but there was so little bribery of prominent Americans. What if there WAS bribery of Americans? What if a certain individual who is a horse-faced DORK was on the list of Americans paid to oppose the war?
Probably not true since he voted for the authorization. But man would that be sweet.
In this world of instantaneous communications I'm not sure it's necessary to have a forum for the Globe to come together and debate the issues of the day.
I'm more and more convinced the UN is Antichrist and must be destroyed.
It is my humble opion that the un is a harbenger of evil on earth! It will be dealt with when the BOSS [read as Jesus] comes back! We must try to hold our heads together and keep to our beliefs and true to GOD's word.
In the name of the poor, the media supports socialist dictator agendas that caused killing of millions in the last century. Why would they stop now?
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.