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

Skip to comments.

What's next for the U.N.?
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | March 29, 2003 | March 29, 2003

Posted on 03/31/2003 3:14:52 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe

The first week of fighting has brought news reports from independent journalists that reveal the true colors of the Iraqi regime. No one should be surprised that, in Saddam's world, POWs are shot in the head, Iraqi soldiers pretend to surrender in order to ambush Americans, and other nasty tactics are implemented as reported thus far.

U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan has also shown his true colors: He chose to ignore Saddam's atrocities and, instead, chose to condemn the explosions in a marketplace presumed, and reported to be, attacked by U.S. missiles that may have gone astray – but which may well have been Iraqi missiles.

Additionally, on Wednesday, the U.N. Security Council showed its true colors by opening its doors to all members who wished to make statements condemning the coalition action in Iraq. Only the delegate from Kuwait spoke in favor of unseating Saddam. If anyone ever had any doubt that the U.N. is an anti-American institution, that doubt should certainly now be removed.

Perhaps, finally, America is showing its true colors – red, white and blue – by ignoring the U.N., and putting an end to Saddam's dangerous reign of terror. What comes next at the U.N. will be of historic importance.

Both Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac are insisting that the U.N., not the coalition forces, be in charge of administering post-Saddam Iraq. The Bush administration is not rushing to embrace this idea.

There are indications that the U.S. is willing to let the U.N. continue administering the "oil for food" program, and, perhaps, deliver other humanitarian aid, but in the matter of organizing a new government, the U.S. has its own ideas.

For Annan and Chirac, the issue is not the future of Iraq, but the future of the U.N. that is of greatest concern. America has persuaded 47 nations to publicly join the coalition of the willing, and with the non-public supporters, the coalition is nearly twice the size of the U.N.-backed Desert Storm coalition. This coalition includes the majority of the European Union, and the majority of NATO, leaving France and Germany, as the isolated nations.

Since both France and Germany must have the United Nations to exercise the anticipated power of the European Union, the future administration of Iraq is of utmost importance to them. If the United States ignores their demands, and creates an administrative mechanism outside the U.N., the relevance – and the future – of the U.N. and the European Union will be in question.

Despite the anti-American rhetoric that has, and will continue to spew forth from the Arab press, and much of the liberal press in the U.S., the United States should not trust the U.N. with any important mission. The U.N. has demonstrated its anti-American bias, its inefficiency, indeed, its corruption in many areas, and its inability, or unwillingness, to enforce its own resolutions.

The United Nations' vision of creating world peace through world law, judged by a world court, enforced by a world army – has failed. It has failed because Americans are not willing to surrender their freedom and sovereignty to a world government.

The conflict between national sovereignty and global government has been on a collision course since the inception of the U.N. The two forces collided on March 17, when the United States announced the end of discussions about Iraq. When allied forces moved into Iraq, without formal U.N. approval, it proved only one thing: U.N. approval is meaningless.

The same nations that provided the money and the military power to drive Saddam out of Kuwait are now driving him from power. The fact is, the U.N.'s approval of Desert Storm had nothing to do with its success. The absence of U.N. approval has nothing to do with the success of the current battle. In fact, had it not been for the U.N.'s involvement with Desert Storm, which prevented the removal of Saddam 11 years ago, this battle would not have been necessary.

It's time to let the U.N. fade away. Some of the international organizations that now operate under its auspices may, indeed, be important. If they are, they can earn their continued existence by providing a real service to the nations that pay for their existence. More than 130 U.N. agencies and organizations have become nothing more than self-perpetuating bureaucracies working to justify their own existence.

Now is the time to support Congressman Ron Paul's HR1146, a bill calling for the withdrawal of the United States from the U.N. Now is the time for the United States to ignore the demands of Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac, and help the Iraqi people discover the freedom that Saddam has denied them. Now is the time for the United States to stand firmly on the principles of freedom, and not in the shadow of the U.N.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

1 posted on 03/31/2003 3:14:52 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe; Diver Dave
I'll be writing my congressman, Dennis Cardoza, about this bill, but I have a funny feeling that he uses the delete button as much as his predecessor Gary Condit did.
2 posted on 03/31/2003 3:17:19 PM PST by Commander8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Put a "for sale" sign out front - they're done!!!
3 posted on 03/31/2003 3:24:09 PM PST by CyberAnt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Let us all hope that the UN day of the dictator, and the utopian UN farce known as "One World" dictatorial government, is over.
4 posted on 03/31/2003 3:26:36 PM PST by thinktwice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
now is the time for this Bill

In the future I doubt it could garner more support than it can right now
5 posted on 03/31/2003 3:29:38 PM PST by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Burial.

"RIP UN, NATO, EU"
6 posted on 03/31/2003 3:32:05 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Commander8
If he uses delete on you, send a letter to your local paper.
7 posted on 03/31/2003 3:35:28 PM PST by Mihalis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
..."RIP UN, NATO, EU"...

I'd rather see them stay in place. I don't want to lose my daily humor.

8 posted on 03/31/2003 3:37:26 PM PST by Mihalis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mihalis
That's a great way to contact elected officials, open letters to them in the newspaper.
9 posted on 03/31/2003 3:39:02 PM PST by Commander8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
What's next for the U.N.?

Oblivion

10 posted on 03/31/2003 3:41:40 PM PST by Pete'sWife (Dirt is for racing... asphalt is for getting there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe; Torie; Poohbah
I see no reason for us to be involved in the UN.

But, if we pull out there's the possibility that others will rush to fill the power vacuum.. It could wind up as a large scale version of the ICC with a standing army, given time.

Feelings aside (as I hate the UN completely) Is it beneficial to pull out now, lose our veto on the Security Council and allow someone else (or possibly a group of "someone else’s") to fill this power vacuum and further mold the UN to their liking?

What would the ramifications of such an act be 5 or 10 years from now? What will the others do in our absence?

Threat assessment anyone?

11 posted on 03/31/2003 3:49:19 PM PST by Jhoffa_ (Hi, I'm Johnny Knoxville, and this is "Freepin for Zot!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
Threat assessment:

The UN is VERY unlikely to develop a standing army. If it does, it is unlikely to pose a threat to US interests.

If it poses a threat to US interests, we will simply brush it aside with a minimum of fuss.

Guerilla warfare would not be applicable in such a situation--because, when you get down to it, no one is willing to die for that stupid blue flag and Kofi Annan.
12 posted on 03/31/2003 3:55:42 PM PST by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah

Hard to argue with that. I know I wouldn't sacrifice a 2 day old pizza for the sake of their Blue Flag, let alone a human life.

ANY human life.

13 posted on 03/31/2003 4:03:08 PM PST by Jhoffa_ (Hi, I'm Johnny Knoxville, and this is "Freepin for Zot!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
Hmm...this is the only good argument for staying in the UN...that we still have our veto in the Security Council. This has been mentioned by Bob Dornan and others

Though....would the UN work to remove our veto? And, they ignored Iraq and Saddam for so long...whats to stop them from ignoring any US veto?

Its time to get out of the UN. The UN and its members have no power or will to stop the US anyway. The US exit from the UN would make totally un-credible even more.

What I would like to see....is legislation that will allow the US to try internationals for war crimes against the US...tried in US courts, not the ICC or other World Courts
14 posted on 03/31/2003 4:04:09 PM PST by UCFRoadWarrior (Anti-War Protestors: Our Own Home-Grown War Criminals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior
Though....would the UN work to remove our veto? And, they ignored Iraq and Saddam for so long...whats to stop them from ignoring any US veto?

Only the knowledge that the full wrath of the United States will fall on the UN and the nations that announced that they were overruling a US veto.

Of course, having been raised by Mama Poohbah to be nobody's fool, I sure as f*** would not willingly annoy the US.

15 posted on 03/31/2003 4:07:40 PM PST by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
What's next for the UN? Fill Dirt.
16 posted on 03/31/2003 4:08:03 PM PST by caisson71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior
I'm not really trying to put forth an argument to remain there..

What I am actually looking for is the long view of what would happen if we just flat withdrew. Today, right now.

Who is going to fill this vacuum, how much success would they have, how would it be minifested and what would the UN look like in 5 or 10 years?

Would it collapse? Or become a powerful, destructive instrument of some nation or coalition of nations (to a greater degree than it has already, I know.)

Its more of a hypothetical than an argument to remain, as I hate the UN and always have.

17 posted on 03/31/2003 4:10:38 PM PST by Jhoffa_ (Hi, I'm Johnny Knoxville, and this is "Freepin for Zot!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
It's time to let the UN fade away.

Let's just place a huge punch bowl filled with a Jim Jones concoction of Cool Aid at a UN Meeting, with a sign attached saying: "French Elixir of Life".

After all the beurocrats have imbibed, then the US and its allies can move on to bigger a better accomplishments in the real world.

18 posted on 03/31/2003 4:14:50 PM PST by zbogwan2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
The Following cannot be repeated enough, or loud enough!

Despite the anti-American rhetoric that has, and will continue to spew forth from the Arab press, and much of the liberal press in the U.S., the United States should not trust the U.N. with any important mission. The U.N. has demonstrated its anti-American bias, its inefficiency, indeed, its corruption in many areas, and its inability, or unwillingness, to enforce its own resolutions.

As for this one; all I can say is: Amen & Damn Straight!

The United Nations' vision of creating world peace through world law, judged by a world court, enforced by a world army – has failed. It has failed because Americans are not willing to surrender their freedom and sovereignty to a world government.

19 posted on 03/31/2003 4:17:18 PM PST by AFreeBird (God Bless, God Speed and safe return of our troops, and may God's love be with the fallen and family)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
Yes, and along with it the POS called Agenda 21.
20 posted on 03/31/2003 4:19:10 PM PST by EggsAckley (A little more Shock and Awe, please. A little less Shuck and Jive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

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.

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