Posted on 05/27/2005 5:14:52 PM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance
No, they like Kofi. Like I said, that's really all this is about. It's the Democrat vision of a "humanitarian" organization vs the neocon vision of a more militarized kick-butt organization. Either way doesn't bode well for our national sovereignty. We need to get out, and until then, keep it as powerless and impotent as possible.
I'm not really concerned about what it's "supposed" to be. An organization like that inevitably will grow more powerful if we allow it. We don't need anyone there who'll encourage it to get more powerful.
Take a look around. Look how dispirited Republican followers have become because of it. Despite Dem election losses, the rabid Dems have gotten some red meat thrown their way. Which party's coffers has this stunt helped & which party's coffers has it hurt?
Seems to me they're shooting an awful lot of their ammunition at the Bolton nomination, and will likely be punished for it at the ballot box, at least some ballot boxes.
Don't count on it. General elections are always turned by the "undecideds" & they're not paying attention to any of this. Those who are not interested in it now will not be turned by any TV commercial trying to get them fired up about it months or years from now. The point that is being pushed is by showing Republican inability to lead & the spin on it will be that it's all the Republican's fault. When you have people who want to see the Republicans lead thinking that way, it's not difficult to get people who aren't paying attention to think that way too.
If I thought that the UN would fold up it's tent & just go home if the US pulled out, I'd agree. I think they need a babysitter.
I agree. I'm in, but please bear in mind that I have health problems, and legal problems. I can no longer be as active as I'd like to be. I agree with what you have to say, though. This country is going to hell...
I'm pretty furious at it too.
I cannot understand the motivation of the Marxists in our midst. Frist needs to grow a pair and it makes me want to have him punished by not getting re-elected. Then I think of the alternative and that's simply unfathomable. A dem conrolled house/senate. Shudder.
Makes me want to tune it out entirely and move to Vanuatu like a friend did. (unrelated to politics, has a banking job).
Kasich is worthless, too, IMO.
My post wasn't calling for a pullout from the UN (though I don't think that would necessarily be a bad idea, either, since they're heavily dependent on us). What I said is that we shouldn't be encouraging it to be more powerful (or "effective" or whatever buzzword the administration wants to use). As long as we stay in, we should be inhibiting it at every opportunity.
I taught an adult Sunday school lesson this morning on Matthew 10:27: ' … what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs!'
I wish I had read your essay before preparing the lesson – I would surely have excerpted it, with your permission.
Thank you for a passionate and eloquent essay that so beautifully reflects scripture, and exhorts us to not simply ‘preach to the choir,’ but to wear out some shoe leather and seek out those who may be uninformed, yet willing to listen.
~ joanie
I'm honored. As long as you attribute it here to FR, feel free to quote or cite me.
Power is exerted in a number of ways, not just through the brute force of soldiers. As countries get more and more in the habit of obeying UN resolutions, the pressure is going to be greater and greater for us to do the same, if we want to keep other countries complying with resolutions that we sponsor. No matter how you slice it, a "more effective" UN translates to diminished sovereignty of the member states. There's no way around it. And just to get an idea of the type of "effectiveness" Bolton has in mind, we can just listen to him from my link at #126:
We must also work together to help Member States build capacities to combat terrorism as outlined in Resolution 1373, passed on September 28, 2001. This resolution obligates all U.N. member states to use their domestic laws and courts to keep terrorists from sheltering resources or finding safe haven anywhere in the world and to cooperate in investigating, prosecuting, and preventing terrorism wherever it may spring up. The U.N. Security Council is monitoring compliance with the requirements of this resolution, with impressive results: to date 142 countries have issued orders freezing the assets of suspected terrorists and terrorist organizations; accounts totaling almost $105 million have been blocked - $34 million in the U.S. and over twice that amount in other countries.Now you can certainly say that this is all a good thing on the surface: No one can argue that it's undesirable for countries to take steps to counter terrorism. What matters here, though, is that the UN is able to call the shots the way it does. In other words, it's acting like a government, and governments have a tendency to get more powerful, especially when few people are paying serious attention.
I don't see any requirement for any nation to remain a member of the body. Therefore, it is unable to act as a worldwide governing body.
Bolton took a stand against the gun grabbers in the UN. To me his message to the UN is to stop trying to reach into areas of national sovereignty that have nothing to do with relationships between countries, while at the same time redirecting the UN into areas that *do* affect relationships between nations. Terrorism crosses borders. If it didn't, UN the shouldn't be actively involved with it.
It doesn't matter whether they're "required" to or not. The fact is that they almost univerally (or perhaps completely universally) do remain, and that wouldn't be the case if there weren't consequences for leaving that countries aren't willing to accept. Once you have that basic element, you effectively have the beginnings of a government. Governments have a tendency to get more powerful over time, especially when few people are paying serious attention.
To me his message to the UN is to stop trying to reach into areas of national sovereignty that have nothing to do with relationships between countries, while at the same time redirecting the UN into areas that *do* affect relationships between nations.
We should know from our own constitutional history (think "commerce clause") that there's almost no problem of government that can be incontrovertibly considered a purely internal matter. It's a total fiction to say that by confining a superintending authority to "external" matters only, it won't end up swallowing all powers. Either you're a sovereign nation, or you're not a sovereign nation. That's all there is to it.
You're wrong. It matters a great deal.
The fact is that they almost univerally (or perhaps completely universally) do remain, and that wouldn't be the case if there weren't consequences for leaving that countries aren't willing to accept.
You mean like the consequences the US faces for staying out of the world court & Kyoto? For many, staying has more to do with carrots than sticks. Some stay because they think it's a good place to gang up on the bigger guys (the US). How has that been working out for them?
Once you have that basic element, you effectively have the beginnings of a government.
I disagree with your premise. From your previous quote from Bolton, I don't see anything in there about enforcement. I see a requirement for members. I see monitoring of activities. I don't see any kind of stick for misbehaviour. Okay, so you flunk & the UN issues a resolution against you, then what?
Governments have a tendency to get more powerful over time, especially when few people are paying serious attention.
But you're dealing with someone here who is not accepting the premise that it is a government. Short of the US pulling out, what would you like to see in the American rep to the body? Do you want someone who is going to show up there every day to tell everyone that the organization is useless or that is should be made useless?
Don't underestimate those consequences. Every time we get behind some international court for prosecution of alleged "crimes against humanity" (as with Yugoslavia and Rwanda), we end up giving more prestige to the ICC, and thereby more credibility to those in this country who urge us to join.
For many, staying has more to do with carrots than sticks. Some stay because they think it's a good place to gang up on the bigger guys (the US).
No, they stay because if they leave they'll miss out on assistance from the World Bank and IMF, as well as other assorted UN agencies. Not that these things do all that much for the populations of these countries, but they're often nice sweet deals for the people who run the governments. It absolutely doesn't matter what methods you use to keep countries in line, as long as they're effective.
From your previous quote from Bolton, I don't see anything in there about enforcement. I see a requirement for members. I see monitoring of activities. I don't see any kind of stick for misbehaviour.
He also noted the high level of compliance. These countries aren't just doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
Short of the US pulling out, what would you like to see in the American rep to the body? Do you want someone who is going to show up there every day to tell everyone that the organization is useless or that is should be made useless?
He doesn't have to tell anyone anything if he doesn't want; all he needs to do is veto everything and gum up the works as much as possible.
From FR sidebar:
"This week's USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll states that an overwhelming 80% of liberals were likely to support Hillary for president, compared with 58% of moderates and 33% of conservatives. I cannot believe that ANY conservative at all would support Her Heinous..."
80% of "liberals" means 80% of centric factions and felons.
MEDIA pro-Clinton spin again! Brainwash & deception.
What Americans could possibly want Bill Clinton in the White House as First Husband to an "unwomanly" and ruthless woman president who believes Americans "are selfish" - the very horror of it all.
Bill Clinton is garbage added to Hillary Clinton's already very heavy negative baggage. I like it when Hillary sounds like a Banshee - it becomes her.
Soros must have bought the Gallup Poll, CNN and USA Today to propagandize in favour of Hillary.
If Hillary is defeated in the NY senate race in 2006 she might defect to France - Chirac needs help.
Well put, Blur. Please count me as a fellow marathoner. :-)
Good rant, rookie! ;^)
And I do my share daily. My leftist employees, of which there are many, do choose to tolerate my comments on a daily basis. LOL
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.