Posted on 04/03/2003 3:20:03 PM PST by zingzang
By William Alford April 3, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In word and deed the Left continues to demonstrate a sincere conviction that George W. Bush represents a substantially greater threat to their interests than does Saddam Hussein. Prior to the current conflict the Iraqi dictator had merely caused the death of thousands in two regional wars, killed thousands more of his own people by means of torture, summary executions and poison gas, and torched over 600 oil wells. Apparently, such atrocities are far more acceptable than the President of the United States having the temerity of subjecting his foreign policy to Congressional approval rather than that of the UN.
Those who oppose Saddam’s forcible ouster/disarmament do not object because of the possibility of heavy casualties and collateral damage. Many more people have died under Saddam’s manipulation of the UN sanctions regime than are likely to perish in the now-ongoing war. The fact that the Security Council now dithers over providing aid to innocent Iraqis further indicates that there are several other priorities that trump any humanitarian concerns.
The existence of independent and sovereign nation-states in a Hobbesian ‘state of nature’ is widely believed by UN supporters to be the principal cause of war. Moreover, a small overlapping cadre also holds that the optimal means to implement a Master Plan for society is via a singular global regime. Competition simply cannot be tolerated. The pervasive control and economic degradation that typifies Utopian government is far more difficult for the lumpenproletariat to accept if others are enjoying freedom and prosperity elsewhere.
This partially explains why any assertion of national policy that is not subordinate to the UN is greeted with such hysteria. Additionally, while the UN has on occasion been able to grudgingly acquiesce to defending against aggression, removing the offending dictatorship has always been beyond consideration. Having a government that is held into place by force replaced with one subject to popular mandate would set a frightening precedent for most member states, especially those in the Middle East.
The 1971 ejection of democratic Taiwan in favor of Mao’s China serves as a good benchmark illustrating the UN’s long-standing irrelevance. Any international body that includes governments that are held in place by force can never serve the cause of peace, because it is dictatorship, not nationhood that makes war inevitable. History has repeatedly shown that tyranny cannot be peacefully appeased or ‘contained’ for long.
For several generations, much of humanity has been locked in a deadly conflict between the world’s various despotic regimes [and their appeasers] and those who support the cause of freedom. It is a zero-sum game; the dictators have always known that. It’s time we in the free world understand this also and act accordingly. Passivity has never served to protect us. We must have at least as much resolve to defend liberty as do those who are determined to destroy it.
An international organization that is dedicated to peace must of necessity be committed to strengthening and proliferating freedom. In such a body, member nations would be encouraged to develop their own versions of limited representative government. A collective umbrella of advice, financial aid and military protection would accordingly serve to shield emerging democracies as they develop.
A libertarian ‘hands-off’ approach may be feasible at some point, but for now the combined weight of freedom’s enemies is too great to go it alone. Therefore, the consolidated strength of the free world – diplomatic, economic and/or military – must be applied judiciously but relentlessly until the grip of tyranny is broken in every corner of the globe. Then and only then can there be a prospect of lasting peace and prosperity for all mankind.
Cultural relativists would have us believe that tyranny is endemic to some societies. We must leave the oppressed people of the world to their dictators; they are not ready to be free. In his Jan. 28 State of the Union address, the President offered a differing view: “Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to humanity.”
OR
Do what were doing now in Iraq.
Go thru the offices one by one collect all the TERROR DATA AGAINST the United States. Clean it out and clean it up. Kick the Terror bastards out and start over as an anti Terrorist pro American organization. To belong you must stand and fight for Freedom around the world. No matter who,what or where.
PERIOD>/B>
Then, send Kofi and Krew off to Cameroon to their new headquarters.
I aim to please!
"Thanks, Scotty."
"My pleasure, son."
Want a break from war news? Go to the Stark Trek Freeper Post or the New Stark Trek Website for a laugh or two. Then come back refreshed and loaded for bear!
Who was President in 1971? Who was his UN Ambassador?
RM Nixon and GHW Bush.
Okay, I have my asbestos underpants on, so fire away!
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.