Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: exodus
Strangely enough, Jeane Kirkpatrick made President H. Bush's Iraq decision the jewel in the crown of her complaint against UN at CPAC 2000, I believe.

She referred the audience to Margaret Thatcher's biography in which is detailed Bush's decision to stay her hand (where assistance to Kuwait was concerned) pending a "mother may I? Yes you may." from the UN Security Council.

At the time, Kirkpatrick was adamant that our submitting our national sovereignty (as well as the de facto submission of national sovereignty of any nation invaded like Kuwait) to the UN was absolutely WRONG. She cited the "one-nation one-vote" nature of the Security Council ... nations with little or nothing in the way of financial support or LIVES to put on the line deciding what the US would ultimately do.

Naturally, she'd changed her tune entirely by last year ... instead of consistently excoriating the UN, oohing and aahing over what great friends they turned out to be as we beat our chests and pummeled the third-worlders of Afghanistan in a great show of vengeance against Osama which accomplished nothing save the re-upping of the drug trades, reinstallation of the thugs who'd always been friendly to the "former Soviet" drug trade and obliteration of the last of those who'd consistently resisted the old "Evil Empire".

11 posted on 03/01/2003 3:44:38 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Askel5
At the time, Kirkpatrick was adamant that our submitting our national sovereignty (as well as the de facto submission of national sovereignty of any nation invaded like Kuwait) to the UN was absolutely WRONG. She cited the "one-nation one-vote" nature of the Security Council ... nations with little or nothing in the way of financial support or LIVES to put on the line deciding what the US would ultimately do.
**********************

That's the complaint I have, after I get passed the rant about the violation of our law.

Our Founders gave the several States representation in our National government, but it was made law that each of those States would have a Republican form of government, themselves.

The U.N. is "representative" only by reputation. The majority of it's members are not free societies.

Worse, there is no doubt that the U.N. does not overly concern itself with the interests of the United States. In fact, to most of it's member States, America is considered an enemy.

That is not the sort of place we need to look for authorization of anything.

17 posted on 03/01/2003 3:57:18 PM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson