Skip to comments.
Let’s quit the UN
The Spectator ^
| Feb. 8, 2003 (Advance Copy)
| Mark Steyn
Posted on 02/06/2003 7:04:43 AM PST by conservativecorner
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-112 next last
Great commentary concerning the UN and the USA!!
To: conservativecorner
Steyn BUMP!
2
posted on
02/06/2003 7:21:52 AM PST
by
happygrl
To: conservativecorner
I've been saying for years that we sould (1) withdraw from the UN, and (2) demand that the UN find a more suitable location for their operations. The events of the past 12 years have done nothing but bolster my opinion on this.
After the fabulous presentation given by Colin Powell yesterday, I watched and listened to the comments given by the members of the Security Council. There was nothing surprising in any of the comments made by the French, the Germans, or the Syrians.
I have already contacted the offices of my Congressman (Tom DeLay) and bothe on my Senators (Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Cornyn) to express my views. I strongly recommend that everyone do the same.
The UN has demonstrated time and again that they are nothing more than a playground for Anti-American socialists that have no interest other than aquiring power and money for their own benefit.
The sooner that the UN is disolved, the better.
3
posted on
02/06/2003 7:22:23 AM PST
by
Howie66
To: Howie66
"When I first saw it, circa 1990, [referring to the "Get the US out of the UN" sign} I believe I gave a wry chuckle positively Pattenesque in its amused sophistication: to be sure, the UN contains its share of rum coves but no serious person would entertain the notion of US withdrawal. Now I think hes dead right"
This precisely describes the path I have taken. And we need to get the UN out of the US.
4
posted on
02/06/2003 7:29:55 AM PST
by
Bahbah
(Pray for our Troops)
To: conservativecorner; Pokey78
bump
To: Bahbah
This precisely describes the path I have taken. Agreed, sir.
6
posted on
02/06/2003 7:41:31 AM PST
by
Snake65
To: conservativecorner
"So I say: go ahead, Jacques, make my day. Wield your veto, and let the Texan cowboy and his ever-expanding posse go it alone."Bump!
To: conservativecorner
He has put his finger on it. UN approval for the war will be relatively simple to get. Its simply a matter of mortgaging are assets to French interest.
But how is a vote purchased with the Iraqi peoples' treasure more moral than a simple decision taken by elected US leadership, taking into account the interests of this country and the region?
We have been warning the UN that if they unable to respond to Iraq's defiance of their own resolutions, they will wake up to find themselves irrelevant. But let them sleep... they are already irrelevant. They already are unable to respond. The only UN decisions that are enforced are the ones we choose to enforce. The others simply hang in the air like an unanswered question.
The UN is a collection of mostly statist and socialist countries that could in no way be construed as sharing our values. We should never allow ourselves to be yoked to such a crowd as this. This does not mean we should never act in concert with other countries; we almost always do partner with others. But the partnerships are real ones, based on shared interests, and shared values. And they are always partnerships which arise naturally, owing nothing to our respective UN memberships.
Steyn has it about right. The UN is already finished. They have already been pants'ed, and there is nothing left to the imagination. But we have lost nothing, really, except an illusion. The real alliances we still have just as we have always had them. The countries that are willing to face a bullet for us, are willing for reasons having nothing to do with the UN. The others who offer help less publicly, at the level of law enforcement, likewise do so for reasons unrelated to the UN.
We will get by without it. The age of multilateralism will not disappear with the death of the UN, but the multilateral bodies that arise will be "organic", they will arise in response to a specific need, and will therefore be real. The UN is a fantasy. However fond some of us may have been, it was never real.
8
posted on
02/06/2003 9:02:19 AM PST
by
marron
To: headsonpikes; Howlin; riley1992; Miss Marple; deport; Dane; sinkspur; steve; kattracks; ...
Thanks!
9
posted on
02/06/2003 9:03:56 AM PST
by
Pokey78
To: marron
"mortgaging are assets " = "mortgaging Iraqi assets"
dang.
10
posted on
02/06/2003 9:04:00 AM PST
by
marron
To: conservativecorner
Lets quit the UN I didn't even have to read the article. My answer is Yes.
11
posted on
02/06/2003 9:05:13 AM PST
by
Terriergal
(Matthew 23:24 "You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. ")
To: conservativecorner
Quit the Unimportant Nations? Surely you can't be serious.
12
posted on
02/06/2003 9:06:41 AM PST
by
Redcloak
(Jøin the Cøälition tø Prevent Unnecessärily Verbøse änd Nønsensicäl Täg Lines, eh)
To: conservativecorner
To: Howie66
I would like us to make sure the UN is dissolved, rather than see it continue on without us from its new HQ in Berlin or Beijing.
To: conservativecorner
There were many woozy Western liberals who felt and still feel that the theoretical idealism of communism excused all its terrible failures in practice. The UN gets a similar pass but from a far larger number of people. How else to explain all those polls in Britain, Australia and even America that show popular support for war contingent on UN approval? The UN means the Security Council; the Security Council is a negative it means anything which doesnt prompt France, Russia or China to use their vetoes. I mentioned a few months back those Anglican churchmen whove redefined the Christian concept of a just war to mean only one sanctioned by the UN, and said I couldnt see why it should be left to two atheists and a lapsed Catholic to decide whether this is a war Christians could support. But amazingly the Anglican position has now been embraced by huge majorities of the British, Australian and American peoples: only the UN can confer moral respectability on the war. Huge Steyn Bump.
I have pondered this very point over and over again in recent months. Why this fetish of moral authority at the hands of the UN? This body of mostly thugs and kleptocratic swags?
Whatever the UN is spending on PR it is getting all of its money's worth. Never before has there been such a disconnect between the image and the reality of an institution.
To: Jim Noble
Lack of funding would dissolve it quickly enough, I think. Not to mention the amazing amount of infighting that would take place in the post-US vacuum.
To: conservativecorner
The UN is nothing less than the skeleton structure of the New World Order. That's all it is. Katie, thus, is a useful tool for the socialist/communist/dictatorial LEFT!!!
To: YoungKentuckyConservative
18
posted on
02/06/2003 9:25:24 AM PST
by
RonPaulLives
(Virgil Moore/Don Bell For Kentucky 2003)
To: conservativecorner; MadIvan
the Anglo-Aussie-American relationship The "Triple A"! I just might be able to warm up to that!
To: rintense; lawgirl; DJ88; goodnesswins; GretchenEE; Howlin; Republic; twyn1; Mo1; gramho12; ...
A Steyn ping!
I'm firmly in the US OUT OF THE UN camp.
20
posted on
02/06/2003 9:37:07 AM PST
by
Wphile
(President Bush is a man of character)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-112 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson