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.
I'd rather see them stay in place. I don't want to lose my daily humor.
Oblivion
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 elses") 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.