Posted on 01/01/2005 9:05:12 AM PST by chiller
In order to proceed FORWARD with aid to suffering human beings, it's far easier to work with the UN, while quietly forcing them to take care of business first, pleasure later, than it is to refuse to acknowledge it exists. For one thing, the US is a founding nation of the UN. To refuse acknowledge it exists while it still holds such influence in the Third World is to cut our noses off to spite our faces. If he did such a thing right now, the president truly WOULD be guilty of being an undiciplined, undiplomatic, unilateralist, ignorant, backwoods cowboy.
The important thing is to proceed with giving the IMMEDIATE AID necessary and help as many people as possible in the most efficient manner possible. THAT is the way to win the hearts and minds of the grassroots populations.
Perhaps you would be better served reading exactly how we, as a nation, are connected to the UN?
"The Charter, which came into effect on 24 October 1945, is the "constitution" of the United Nations, establishing its basic principles, purposes, machinery. It is an international treaty which all UN member states must ratify in accordance with their own national processes. In the United States, the Charter was ratified in the Senate by a vote of 89-2. Under the terms of the necessary and proper clause of the United States Constitution, it became federal law through the United Nations Participation Act passed by Congress in 1945."
http://www.yclub.org/GUNA2005/UNFacts.htm
If you think President Bush has the authority to remove this nation from the UN on his own, you are sadly mistaken.
I haven't cut it to zero but, like you, I've shifted my charitable contributions from ARC to other organizations.
Forbes.com has a great listing on the efficiency of charitable organizations. Even after checking out their efficiency, one needs to check out their mission statements and programs. Lots of charities have politically oriented programs that conservatives and libertarians would find objectionable.
***Exactly. He's been slapping them around for 4 years. With one TEMPORARY exception, pre-Iraq Security Council circus, which was offset by the massive blood-for-oil vouchers scandals, the UN has always come off on the short end.
He's giving them a chance to save face this time.***
Agreed! President Bush has always taken the high road. Sometimes I wish he would slap the liberals down, but in the long run, he is right. From what I've read of the last election, the people are getting very sick of the mud slinging. President Bush, on the other hand, stays steady and LEADS. And he is respected for that. AND HE WON!
***With all due respect, it's a time for action, not promotion.***
Absolutely! And that's just what Dubya has done. Lives are on the line.
Those people would be Kerry, the communists, the socialists and the DUmmy lunatics.
Yep. And a "fringe" benefit - understatement of the millenium - of all of that is it isn't just Americans who are tired of the media fablefests that the left keeps manufacturing....the entire WORLD is obsessed with the UNited States, frequently to the point where they forget they can't vote in our elections.
THEY'RE getting tired of the fablefests too. Between President Bush's leadership abilities and the internet, people are beginning to realize that they don't have to grouse about us while dreaming of a better future in their own countries : they can creat a better future in their own countries. Look ad Canada and Ukraine. Like President Reagan before him, President Bush is leading the people the entire world into a brighter future...as we SHOULD expect the leader of the free world to do.
Maybe they figure it's better to have a powerless organization of thieves than a replacement which might be an organization of thieves with guns.
That is the question many of us keep harping about.
And in one of the remarks he made this morning in his beautiful New Years statement,he requested that Americans contribute to www.usaid.gov or something called freedom.gov.I guess there's a link to the latter organization from the main one(usaid.gov).The point,and it hit me immediately was that he is requesting that Americans contribute to organizations which are well known and have good reputations. He did not even mention that we should contribute to the UN. In fact, he said that the U.S.'s initial donation was going to the local humanitarian efforts. I assumed that when he said that, the balance of the United States donations will go to local humanitarian efforts as well and not to the UN.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1312134/posts
URL above is just a shameless plug for the truth antidote to the "stingy" comments...
I am hoping that Jeb Bush will tell the president the real story of what is happening on the ground.
BTTT
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.