Posted on 09/23/2003 10:20:36 AM PDT by Bob J
"America's UN-Witting Surrender "
by Jonathan David Morris
Rudy Giuliani said something on TV last week -- and I can't remember which station he was on, or else I'd give credit -- but what he said was that New York City shouldn't build a new World Trade Center on the site of the old one. Ground Zero's a landmark, he said, or will be for future generations -- so it's up to us to preserve it.
Now, while I agree with America's Mayor that we shouldn't rebuild where the WTC stood -- and especially not if we're going to go with that idiotic, contest-winning Libeskind spire design -- I disagree on the point that we shouldn't rebuild the Twin Towers. We should rebuild them. Except we should do it somewhere else.
Here's an ideal location: 1st Ave at 46th St, New York, NY 10017.
In other words, we should put the new buildings right where the United Nations now resides.
All right, before you say anything, I know this probably sounds like sour grapes right now, seeing as how the Bush administration is seeking UN support in the messy aftermath of the Second Gulf War. I can see where you'd make that mistake. Because I did, indeed, once say we wouldn't need the UN in this venture, and it would appear now that even the White House thinks I was wrong -- as do the people inside it, I'd imagine, but that's beside the point. This isn't about being bitter. I haven't got much to be bitter about. We won the war, in case you missed it, and, for what it's worth, I'm all for acquiring help -- on the field and at the bank -- if the president feels it's necessary.
But this isn't about me. It's about future generations, remember? It's about the children. Think about the children! And while you're at it, ask yourself what the children will think about September 11th, because I get the feeling they won't think much of it at all.
No, I'm not about to go off on a "Never Forget 9/11" spiel here. What I'm saying, though, is we owe it to future generations to interpret -- and act upon -- an important lesson we've been ignoring since the terrorist attacks. Let me put it this way: Just as we should preserve Ground Zero for our children, so, too, should we uphold the sovereignty of the country for which Manhattan -- and D.C. and Shanksville -- took a hit.
Respectfully bowing out of the UN would be a major step in this direction.
Think about it. Why'd we invade Iraq this year? Forget about the War on Terror for a moment. Forget about Middle East peace. Forget about your oil conspiracy theories. What was it, exactly, that so emboldened us towards war? Weapons of mass destruction? Oh, we made a big fuss over the weapons, all right, but weren't the weapons mere details?
(Yes, I realize this sounds suspicious given the scarcity of found weapons. Work with me here.)
In the strictest sense, the reason we invaded Iraq was Saddam's noncompliance with a string of 17 UN resolutions. To that end, the weapons were secondary -- important in making the case, of course, but nonetheless secondary. Theoretically speaking, had the UN decided Saddam couldn't make toast anymore, and Saddam kept making toast anyway, we still would've been contractually obligated to deprive him of his bread and butter. But without those UN resolutions, we would've been no more justified in attacking Iraq than attacking Luxembourg.
Therein lies a problem: Because the Security Council failed to enforce its own orders, we were the bad guys somehow.
If the UN says we can't go to war, then, by God, we can't go to war.
Well, let's take out our copies of the United States Constitution, grab our highlighters, and turn to the part where our forefathers granted exclusive war-making abilities to an international organization of bad drivers and bureaucrats. No, wait. Never mind. They never did that. So, right off the bat, we shouldn't be letting the UN tell us when we can and can't go to war. It's our country. Not theirs.
Granted, the UN's just inept enough to make it worth keeping around for laughs -- announcing Iran and Iraq as co-chairs of a disarmament conference comes to mind -- but we won't find it funny when they confiscate guns, regulate religions, and roll back free markets far and wide. Oh, sure, you can smile at this pure speculation now, but enjoy it while you can. None of this is beyond the realm of reason in a world run by one governing body with a bunch of long arms.
Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who led a Congressional vote this summer that saw 74 of his House colleagues vote in favor of withdrawing from the UN (with 350 opposed and 10 abstaining), recently put it like this: "At some point, the American people will have to choose between American national sovereignty and an increasingly powerful UN global government."
I say the time is come and it seems most Americans agree. In fact, according to a Gallup poll conducted in late August and released last week, just 37 percent of Americans say the UN is doing a "good job." What's more, some 60 percent agree the UN's doing a "poor job" -- the highest such rating in the 50 years Gallup's asked this question.
And I don't want to sound like I've gone soft here -- or worse, liberal -- but it's becoming apparent that, to prevent future Nine-Elevens, we'd do well to finish the present crisis, withdraw from all corners of the Earth, and line our borders with the best weapons we can buy. Folks can trade with us still, but that's it. It's getting to be an abusive relationship, what we have with this world.
People talk about how the presence of our military and corporate logos overseas caused the death of 3,000 Americans. I neither excuse the attacks nor agree with the assessment of American imperialism, but maybe we should deal with things as they are -- not as they ought to be. I mean, if Usama bin Laden doesn't want us in the Middle East, fine. Let's finish our mission and leave. Let those countries sort things out on their own. Maybe the next 5,000 years will go as well as the last.
Don't worry about Israel, either. They'll probably have an easier time dealing with terror without us. That's because they won't deal with it -- they'll do away with it. Let's stop tying their hands and see how quickly they democratize the region. I say by this time next Thursday. What's your bet? Noontime tomorrow?
Same goes with South Korea. Can anyone tell me why our soldiers are still over there, standing right in the line of nuclear fire, while South Koreans protest us in the streets? If they don't want us there, it's quite all right. No hard feelings. Let's pack our things and see if we can't make the next ferry home.
Maybe I'm being a bit presumptuous here, but I get the feeling a lot of the countries we defend with our tax dollars could defend themselves just fine if they realized they had no choice. Not to sound callous or anything, but other people's problems are other people's problems, aren't they? That's the message the UN sent us when they turned their backs on the Iraq war, after all. Let's pick a standard and stick with it already.
Just last week, ABC News announced it had smuggled uranium into America for the second time in as many years -- and for those of you playing at home, those would be the only two years of the post-9/11 era. So, while we're off policing the world and getting no respect whatsoever for it, our own borders are a joke. Who's defending us, anyway? The French? Because the feds sure aren't.
Neither are the border states. Just look at California. Not only do the authorities refuse to send illegals back to the countries from whence they came, but they actually give them stuff for coming here -- like scholarships and driver's licenses. For God's sake, if Mexico can have a secure southern border, why can't we?
The brave young men in America's military signed up to defend their country. Meanwhile, many of them are defending someone else's country, enduring protests and talk of an American empire while the borders in their homeland remain a wide-open mess. I'm not saying we should pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other country directly relevant to our current mission -- where I come from, that's called a bad idea. But at the same time, let's announce an exit strategy for the War on Terror. Let's make a promise to exit-stage-right from the bad teen drama that is world affairs, and let's get the UN out of New York while we still can.
Thomas Jefferson once said "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Meanwhile, it was Jefferson Davis who said, "All we ask is to be left alone," upon his inauguration as president of the Confederacy. He didn't ask for the North to accept the South's ugly slave system. He didn't ask the North for anything. We know how that story ended. How about the modern one?
As far as I'm concerned, the best course of action is the one where we get to watch the UN building implode. It’s us or them after all, and my vote is for them.
© 2003 Jonathan David Morris. All rights Reserved.
Jonathan David Morris can be reached at www.readjdm.com.
LiteKeeper
Chaplain, US Army, retired
The demagogues and kleptocrats in the Turd World would be robbed of their favorite scapegoat, and would have to face up to their own shortcomings as leaders as opposed to being able to blame Uncle Sam for everything wrong in their rat-hole countries.
And it would make Thomas Jefferson and George Washington smile!
Relevent to that quote is that only congress has the authority to declare war. This wasn't Bush's decision to make even though congress delegated its authority to him. Had the constitution been followed, both rhetorically and actively, congress wouldn't be able to blame Bush for taking the US into Iraq; not that Democrats wouldn't try anyway.
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.