Skip to comments.United Nations actions mock the free world
Posted on 02/02/2003 9:36:58 AM PST by Chi-townChief
Either Rod Serling or the Klingon High Council is hovering above me.
After reading the news this morning on the Internet, I've determined that either I'm lost in the Twilight Zone or living on another planet.
The headline on CNN.com reads and I am not making this up "Iraq to chair U.N. disarmament conference."
It gets better.
The co-chair for this May conference in Geneva is Iran. Yup. That's the United Nations in action.
As I understand, the disarmament conference has a rotating chairmanship, but putting Iraq in a leadership role on a disarmament panel is one more example of critical problems with the U.N.
Two weeks ago, the U.N. tapped Libya to chair the Human Rights Council.
Now then, Moammar Gaddafi is the dictator of this country that gave rise to the folks who blew up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie. Human rights is not a Libyan government strong point.
So, then, what's next for the U.N.? Maybe they'll tap Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe to lead the council on feeding the hungry.
Or the U.N. might name Matt Hale to chair a committee on racial sensitivity.
On a serious note, though. One has to wonder how the U.N. can be considered a responsible world governing body with such insane choices for leadership.
I for one am very troubled by a series of U.N. actions that make a mockery of the free world.
And speaking of the free world, I think President Bush's speech writer deserves a huge bonus.
Not only was Tuesday's State of the Union address extremely well-crafted with loads of bon mots, but it gave our elected leaders, especially the cheering Republicans, one heckuva workout.
I counted some 80 standing ovations during the speech.
But back to the fine words. Of the U.S. armed forces Bush said, "You believe in America and America believes in you."
Another one I loved: "Free people will set the course of history." And then there was, "The course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others."
Bush was on target but chilling when he said, "Sometimes peace must be defended."
Superb language use aside, my sense is that the president set out a very strong case against Iraq.
Originally that disarmament was supported in full by the now wayward U.N.
Hans Blix, who is leading the so-called search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq wants more time.
Now I am not a hawk. My mother would tell you the thought of war terrifies me. As a kid I had nightmares about war and A-bombs, and as a young adult, every war-threatening headline gave me a panic attack.
But a nut like Saddam Hussein keeping the free world at bay is even more fear-inspiring.
Yesterday there was a glimmer of hope that Russian President Vladimir Putin, long an ally of Saddam's, may join the unfortunately diminishing ranks of those seeking to oust the Iraqi despot who, by the way, is starving his own people as he builds lavish palaces for himself.
I don't know the answer.
I don't pretend to have a solution.
But as national security adviser Condoleezza Rice says, we don't want the smoking gun from Iraq to be a mushroom cloud.
This is great to see - Athough Myra Eder always tends to the left of the spectrum, she does not seem to possess the liberal mentality. I always like to see when someone on the other side is enlightened. "Liberal thinking" is always an oxymoron but Ms. Eder may just be a thinking liberal.
I know that some of you are flipping out over this UN decision to let Iraq head this panel... PLEASE be patient!!! >P>
Within the next month "or so ;>" the Iraqi's will have their work cut out for them!!!!!
I posted this reply in an earlier post,
No, really, I do. So let's get that out of the way first.
But you know there are very few organizations which let you look like you're at least trying to operate multilaterally while acting unilaterally. An example is unilaterally building up your forces on the enemy's border while multilaterally urging the enemy to comply with demands to disarm - for no other reason than to make invasion easier to achieve.
There are also very few organizations which allow you to use them as a Trojan Horse to conduct covert espionage operations against the enemy all under the guise of "humanitarian aid" or "arms inspections".
Furthermore, there are very few organizations which can be so easily exploited to feed and even arm your allies, like the Kosovo Liberation Army, or the Bosnian Muslims - again, under the hilarious guise of "humanitarian aid".
So while I appreciate the sentiment, the UN is too useful to the US to give up. I know that the truth can hurt sometimes, but how's that old saying about taking a horse to water go again?
Recognize the United Nations for what it is, a luxurious spa for wealthy, pompous dictators and other so-called diplomats and rulers, this rogue organization is a safe harbor for the NWO and other Stalinists. Wouldnt the UN building have been a far better target......oops sorry, too many relatives/terrorists working there.
If we seize the moment.
And then there was, "The course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others."
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.