UN lets tinpot dictators rule the world

The Daily Telegraph ^ | March 12, 2003 | Janet Daley

[MadIvan]

Janet Daley hits the bullseye yet again.

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

Bump!

[Mudboy Slim]

Git the US Outta the UN and Git the UN Outta the US!!

NOW!!!! Rollin' rollin' rollin'...MUD

[Billy_bob_bob]

When you see powerful nations bow and grovel before the likes of Guinea, you really have to ask yourself just what the heck the U.N. is for.

[bobi]

Well I can't see the problem here.

US can go without a UN resolution any time and will do it.

So the solution here is the US and Britain to go alone and do what has to be done.

I am surprised that they even waited for so long.

Screw the UN, screw Russia, France, Germany or any other country that opposes this war.

US and Britain as leaders of the free world can go alone.

Or can they .....?

[EaglesUpForever]

Unless of course you're the corrupt ruler of Guinea...

[solzhenitsyn]

My feelings exactly. We shouldn't covet the UN's imprimatur, and we definitely shouldn't be competing to purchase it. We should just tell the world exactly what the UN is, and go ahead and do what's right with respect to Iraq.

In the short run, it could make things considerably more difficult. The long run is more important. We need to do what's right, and the rest of the world needs to know that we'll do what's right, no matter what a bunch of bloody dicatators' toadies have to say about it.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

But if it is wrong to leave Saddam in power, why is it right to do so if the UN cannot resolve its differences

The essence of the UN resolution nonsense and proof that the average person "polled" on the subject has no clue about the impotency of the UN.

Evil is evil and does not become "good" just because the UN can't agree on a course of action.

What all this proves is there are only a few leaders left in the world who know the difference between right and wrong and are willing to fight to eliminate the wrong.

[solzhenitsyn]

Ivan, thanks for the excellent article.

[solzhenitsyn]

What all this proves is there are only a few leaders left in the world who know the difference between right and wrong and are willing to fight to eliminate the wrong.

Beautifully put.

[Mudboy Slim]

LOL...it really has become the Theater of the Absurd...Libya's headin' human rights and Iraq soon to be takin' over the Disarmament Committee...SHEEEEESH!!!

FReegards...MUD

[PoisedWoman]

But if it is wrong to leave Saddam in power, why is it right to do so if the UN cannot resolve its differences, many of which stem from morally dubious motives?

She hits the nail on the head. Only liberals would have trouble with that logic.

[Billy_bob_bob]

All they need to do now is appoint Michael Jackson as "Ambassador to the children of the world" and they'll have a hat trick.

[Brett66]

UN approval has become a covenient excuse to kick the can down the road and not face up to an issue. It gives cover for cowards, terrorists, dictators and the most evil,vile leaders in the world. It has encouraged corruption in it's ranks as it provides safe haven for rich dictators to bribe these beauracrats to do their bidding.

[per loin]

Can anyone claim to have been edified by the pantomime of the past few days, with the foreign ministers of the great nations flying around Africa with metaphorical suitcases full of money to "persuade" tinpot dictators to support their position in the Security Council?

I am disgusted that our president has done this. If we feel justified in going to war, then let's do it. If we don't, then stop blustering. But this begging of Cameroon, Guinea, and Angola for their permission to use our troops is an absolute humiliation for the United States. Somebody tell Bush that we are a sovereign country, not a colony of Cameroon.

[Shermy]

I cannot imagine what keeps the UN true believers going.

The lefties think they control it, at least the apparatchiks who make up the million-dead-Iraqi-baby stories and staff aid agencies.

Plus there is no firm voice, say from Bush, explaining why France is acting the way it is, why the security council is against enforcing its own edicts, why membership on the security council does not humble a state, but makes their own self-interest more powerful - self-interest is not checked at the door of the UN, it is increased.

In America the TV Networks portray the UN as important - images of Powell support. All actions of foreign countries opposing the US are portrayed as moral and reasoned, merely responsive to the US, especially perceived faults. Occasionally they'll have someone speak about France's self-interest, etc., but this is quickly ignored and the standard propaganda line is held. (NPR, BTW, had a very good story about French interests, surprisingly.) The Democrats would sound spiteful, some almost treasonous, except they so obviously don't know what they're talking about, are trying to sound smart, and are obsessed with Bush.

The US, if it has the dirt on France or Chirac, won't release it - except some cryptic news about Mirage parts to Baghdad from an unnamed source that doesn't name names. Basically the war will be finished, but it has not been handled well in press releases or diplomacy.

Plus Bush waited too long.

[technomage]

Okay, I don't understand what the problem with the UN is? After all, they are going to put in place the ultimate deadline for Saddam! In fact, I was able to fly my 1 nanometer drone (equipped with a microphone and transmitter) into the closed security council session. Here is what I picked up:

"Okay, so we are all in aggreement. Saddam must disarm completely within 10 days or face the consequences. The chair recogizes the gentleman from Cameroon".

"Cameroon agrees. 20 days from today, Saddam must have disarmed completely."

"The chair recognizes Botswana".

"Botswana agrees, but with hesitation. If Irag has not disarmed within the prescribed 45 days, then it regrettably must face war."

"The chair recognizes Andorra"

"Andorra also agrees. Iraq must prove it has completely disarmed within 90 days or it's showtime."

"The chair recognizes Germany".

"Germany abstains".

"The chair recognizes Iceland".

"Iceland agrees 100%. If Saddam has as much as one bullet left in 180 days, we will send our troop to join the battle."

"The chair recognizes France."

"I have been instructed to announce that France surrenders."

"Uh, okay. The chair recognizes the United States."

"We respectfully report that the largest parking lot in the world is now located in downtown Baghdad. So, put that where the sun don't shine Kofi!!"

[Restorer]

As other have pointed out, the Supreme Council of the Mafia voted "democratically" on the propositions that came before them.

Of course, the members of the Council got there by lying, betraying and murdering their opposition. Which perhaps puts a slight crimp in any legitimate claim to moral authority.

Sounds a lot like the UN to me.

[wretchard]

Five days to the end of the United Nations. Start the coundown now. Who would've thunk it. Two years ago, everything was condo boom time for the builders of multilateral institutions. There was Kyoto, the EU, the World Court -- and then of course, there was the UN. Most of the pundits, including conservatives saw multilateral institutions as the precursor to a Global World. The only people opposed were derided as failed security guards or janitors with delusions of seeing Black Helicopters and White Vans in the night.

Today, the EU is in shambles, NATO is in a mess, Kyoto is forgotten, the World Court is studiously trying to find someone acceptable to try to arrest eventually someday and the UN casket is being lowered, none too carefully, into a six-foot hole.

If the world survives, historians of the near future will wonder whatever possessed the Liberal Establishment to throw away the multilateral gains of the last 50 years for the sake of a motheaten, mustachioed middle eastern dictator who was neither Marxist, gay nor chic.

The honest answer is madness. The insanity of Rwanda, Kosovo and Zimbabwe was at heart, a reflection of the madness in the Liberal soul, which saw no evil until it saw nothing. The multilateral institutions broke every record vying for the Three Stooges Award. The UN died when America died laughing.

Rest in pieces.

[Paraclete]

You mean all that "Weekly Reader" stuff I read about the UN back in the '50's and '60's isn't true?