What did the war on Iraq really do to the un?

William Ortel | 9th of | William Ortel

[wcgo2]

What did The war on iraq really do to the united nations?

Ever since the first hut-buster bomb was dropped in baghdad, International and domestic naysayers alike have been questioning our methods and the actual act. But one of the largest choruses of liberal opinion has been that in our action we have undermined the authority that the U.N. Had.

Howeeever, my simple question to them is this, How does enforcing a U.N resolution undermine it´s the authority of the governmental body issuing said resolution?

The fact that we are even debating this is proof that the liberal b.s. machine is alive and well.

Here´s a metaphor enforcing my take on the situation. A married couple instruct their son to take a bath, 7 years later,and after several warnings and demands, when the Child in question stinks to high heaven, the father (the physically stronger of the two) picks the kid up, duct tapes him into the tub, and force-sponge bathes him. All without consulting the mother. However, since enforcing their word does nothing but strengthen their word, she isn´t mad, and the next time her son is asked to bathe, he does so without question and delay.

So, what did the husband do that was wrong ? absolutley nothing. He acted under an emergency in which conferring with his wife would have forced there to be further delay in his son´s bathing, thus lowering the property value of his house and damaging all residents within smelling distance.

How does this relate to saddam? let´s say that the stronger Parent is the U.s., and the weaker, yet more reasonable one is the rest of the world. How does it degrade their union to act on several joint warnings, demands, and ultimatums?

Not at all, because besides the benifit of a clean (weapon free) son, the neighborhood (middle east) is now freer to do what they want to do since the stinky (menacing) child (saddam) is now out of the way.

So tell me, what´s wrong with what we´ve done?

[wcgo2]

sorry all, i forgot to preview before posting, so i apologise for misspellings and gramatical errors.

[Tijeras_Slim]

Why Koba in the keywords? Some fascination with the Gensec?

[Support Free Republic]

50,000 people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund is then due. The team is about to mail refunds when the Congressional Democrats stopps them and decrees that they send out refund amounts based on the Democrat National Committee's interpretation of fairness. After all,if the refunds are made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the wealthiest ticket holders. That would be unconscionable!

Free Republic

Your donations keep us fighting liberals

[longtermmemmory]

(s) If UN resolutions are going to be enforced, then no one is going to agree to them.(/s)

Not that you would EVER want to enforce some of the insanity they produce.

[Radix]

The UN is a joke. It is logically curious that we enforced the resolutions that they voted on and passed. This resulted in the United States (according to some outlets) considered now to be nothing less than a pariah.

Well then, screw em. Who cares what they think? We are Americans and we are better than the rest of the World. They all know it, and they do not like it. Hey, just because it is true does that mean for some foolish notion of correctness that we are not allowed to say it?

We are Americans, and we are better than the rest of the World. That is a fact. We should kick the UN off of our soil, and let them go and play diplomacy with each other over in Belgium or the Hague, or some other sheitehole that Americans have fled from.

[wcgo2]

when i wrote it i had trouble keeping a straight face when i thought about some of the crap that the u.n. produced, and what would happen if people actually cared. But my argument is, how does enforcing the u.n undermine it?

[wcgo2]

screw em, i fully agree. I wouldn´t go so far as to say americans are technically superior to other people, but i would go ahead and say that the u.n needs to be dramatically redifined, but, if we want to keep fighting liberalism, we have to keep it existent, so that we can distract the liberals.

That happens to be all that the u.n is good for, besides securing goats for bosnia.

[longtermmemmory]

doublespeak from 1984 covers it.

[ModelBreaker]

Don't think the analogy is accurate. To make it accurate, you would have to have mom refusing to give permission to the father to effect the bath.

Now the liberal's rage becomes clear. They could care less if the UN has power over Iraq (the Son). What the libs really want is for the UN (mom) to be able to prevent the US (Dad) from enforcing his authority.

So Dad ignored Mom's refusal to give permission. In a marriage, this heralds a clear change in the power relationship in favor of Dad. The libs want Dad weak and Mom strong. So in their view, Mom lost. In mine too.