Replies

Don't forget that even though much of the world considers us rogue, we have conducted this war under the contention that we are in compliance with the UN and resolution 1441.

It's called plausible deniability and with the exception of bombing the hell out of Iraq, Bush has not indicated any intention of violating UN resolutions, much less pulling out and watching the UN fold...leave that to the French and Germans. They have a much greater interest in building a Euro coalition headed by Paris, Berlin and Brussels to establish a beachhead to counter American hedgemony.

Now, that doesn't mean there aren't grander designs across the Atlantic to see a nuetered UN, but first, a couple upstarts will have to be put back in their box to make sure we aren't exchanging one tick for another.

Don't forget that even though much of the world considers us rogue, we have conducted this war under the contention that we are in compliance with the UN and resolution 1441.

Who gives a rat's a$$ about what the communists in the media can trump up as "world opinion"? They're trying to drag us into their democratic socialist pit!!! Clinton ignored the UN when he went into Serbia for less reason than we have against Saddam Hussien. Besides, I don't suppose you remember the way Bill Walker of the CIA (a cousin of George WALKER Bush and a compadre of Ollie North in Nicaragua) staged the Racak Massacre in Kosovo?

Going to the UN gave time for the entire communist movement to organize the demonstrations. It gave time for Saddam to get his defenses ready. It caused us to be looking at our soldiers in chem-suits in an Iraqi summer. It gave time for Al-Qaueda to set up for its "response." I don't call any of that "pragmatic." Going to the UN mired us into UNESCO (after Reagan had got us out). And what did we get for that? 1441 was too high a price to pay for tying an unconstitutional US Department of Education to the UN.

It's called plausible deniability and with the exception of bombing the hell out of Iraq, Bush has not indicated any intention of violating UN resolutions, much less pulling out and watching the UN fold...leave that to the French and Germans.

I agree with that assessment actually; it's one of the things that concerns me about this President.

They have a much greater interest in building a Euro coalition headed by Paris, Berlin and Brussels to establish a beachhead to counter American hedgemony.

I dearly hope they will but I suspect that contingency to be a stepping stone to the larger agenda. Hopefully, Britain and Eastern Europe might recognize the Popular Front that sponsored Lenin for what it is. Having lived under it for sixty years, they might actually pass on that one. I suspect that is one reason they are in with us now. Consider how much balls that took in the face of potentially losing in the EU and then look at Bush's concern about "world opinon."

Now, that doesn't mean there aren't grander designs across the Atlantic to see a nuetered UN, but first, a couple upstarts will have to be put back in their box to make sure we aren't exchanging one tick for another.

I am not sure about which side of the Atlantic you mean because the push "putsch?" for Global Government (or World Federalism for that matter) has its fans on both sides of the Atlantic, including GHWB-41 and Colin Powell. Consider that the UN was an American invention (American communists anyway), along with the IMF, World Bank, the WTO... It was after all, Clinton who sponsored the UN "reorg" that created the Earth Charter, Rio, Agenda21, Sustainable Development, Our Global Neighborhood, the Seville Strategy...