It's GONE!!!
Posted on 02/27/2003 2:29:32 PM PST by yonif
There are those among the anti-War on Iraq lobby who bring forward, among other nice catch phrases, statements talking about how the United States should go through the UN to prevent war, inspectors should be given a chance, or that inspections are the answer. The fact of the matter is that the United Nations has failed to act quickly and has failed to act successfully. Furthermore, inspectors have failed as well in the past.
The first and foremost reason the United Nations should not be entrusted with the interests of our national security, and the interests of those citizens that are currently being repressed in Iraq, is due to the fact the history of the UN's work in the past has shown us ineffective. The UN failed to act quickly when ethnic Albanians were being ethnically cleansed in Kosovo. It took weeks after weeks to finally get final approval from the UN Security Council. There were deliberations and deliberations over empty air. You had countries such as China talking hypocritically about how civilian life was important to them, even though their home record showed otherwise. As a result, more Albanian lives were lost to the hands of the murderer Slobodan Milosevic. The UN indeed failed to act quickly enough to save lives.
Then you had East Timor in 2000. For some time, before UN action was taken, the Indonesian military and sponsored militias went rampaging through the province soon after their citizens voted for independence. This caused destruction to their infrastructure, and more importantly, many people were killed. The UN stood by, led by its bureaucratic, slow system of response. What's more, the UN acted only AFTER the Indonesian government invited them to enter. When Australian forces, leading a UN team, finally entered the province there was little left standing to save.
The UN lacks confidence as well as ability. The most apparent example was the Israeli-Lebanese conflict. After terrorist PLO attacks on northern Israeli town and cities continued, the Israeli government in 1982 decided it was time to act. As a result, during that year, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) invaded Lebanon and established a security sector in the southern part of it. This was done to create a secure buffer zone between Israeli cities and those terrorists shelling them. After this occurred a group sprang up saying they were fighting for an Israeli withdrawal. The terrorist group was Hizbollah. As the PLO terrorists left, Hizbollah became the major terrorist group, funded by Iran and Syria, operating there. It continued to shell IDF positions and at times, reaching Israel. While this was occurring, the UN kept pressuring Israel to withdraw. Israel finally agreed in 2000, under Ehud Barak, to do so. As Israeli forces left Lebanon, UN troops took up positions between Hizbollah and Israel, along the Israeli-Lebanese border. The UN said it would "keep the peace" and serve as the "buffer zone." The fact is that the UN "peacekeepers" have not been doing their job. Hizbollah continues its acts of terrorism (even though Israel has withdrawn!) and launches Katusha rockets at Israeli cities. The UN force has failed in Lebanon and has not guaranteed Israel's security. It has, on the other hand, increased Israel's vulnerability to attack. And yet, the UN is calling on Israel to allow "peacekeepers" to serve as a buffer zone around the Palestinian territories. What do you think would happen then? I think the answer is obvious.
We should also look at the UN as an organization. Who is this UN that everyone wants us to go through? This is the same UN where Libya is the HEAD of the Human Rights Commission. This is the same UN where Iraq is the HEAD of the Disarmament Committee. This is the same UN where Iran will be next in line to chair it. This is the UN of today. And this is the UN we should not entrust our national security with.
The idea of inspections has also been on the minds of anti-War activists. Here is a history lesson. In 1994 the United States signed an agreement with North Korea that basically said that North Korea was to stop its nuclear program, allow IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspectors to enter its country and in return receive aid and the building of three nuclear power plants by the US and Japan. North Korea agreed and Clinton had himself another region to brag about. That was then. In the year 2002 North Korea revealed to a visiting US diplomat in Pyongyang that it actually never froze its nuclear program after the agreement was signed, therefore breeching it. As a result, North Korea is now believed to have two nuclear weapons. This shows us not only how inspections have failed in the past, but have also showed us how incompetent and useless the IAEA is. How is it that North Korea was still able to continue its nuclear program even tough IAEA inspections were occurring? It is pathetic that the IAEA could allow such a thing to happen. Moreover, this is the same IAEA, an organization of the UN, which everyone wants to continue operating to disarm Iraq. What will we get out of another IAEA failure? Another rogue state with nuclear weapons, that's what! I assume you do not want that to happen. Do we dare allow the UN to trust a dictator whose regime has not been afraid to use weapons of that kind in the past?
There are also some misconceptions regarding the inspectors and what they are supposed to be doing. It is due to these false impressions that some people have mistakenly revolved their opinions. What does the term "inspect" mean? Does it mean go around some country looking for weapons? Or does it mean that weapons are to be presented to these people for inspection? The latter is the true definition, in that Saddam is supposed to be presenting his weapons to the inspectors so that they can be looked at and decided upon regarding whether or not they are legal. If these inspectors have the job of finding these weapons they should not be called "inspectors," rather they should have been called "investigators." It is because of this definition, a call from the anti-War lobby such as “Give the Inspectors More Time!” really means "Give Saddam Hussein More Time!" And we all know what that leads to: another 9/11.
There is no reason that the US should be giving information about where this and that weapon is located at all. It is not up to the US to be giving directions to the inspectors. It is up to Saddam Hussein to be frank about his weapons and PRESENT them for inspection. If Saddam Hussein has destroyed his weapons, as he claims, it is up to him to show the inspectors what he did, where he buried them, where he burned them, etc. etc. It is Saddam's war to stop. He has not done so, and he is not planning to do so. The inspections process has failed and it will continue to fail. It is time to stop wasting time. It is time to act.
Let me end with the words of President George W. Bush who said on January 28th 2003, "Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country, and the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation."
Until next time,
YF
---
The writer can be reached at yrfre@conncoll.edu
It is a club for murderers, thugs, dictators, socialists, communists, kings, and other assorted scourges of humanity. The fact that the world's Western democracies supports this club with their citizen's hard earned monies is what attracts the vermin to it.
Isn't it funny how many freedom loving, peaceful, nice people from the West can support the unelected dictators as if they were just like other nations with legitimate governments?
Time for a new United Nations that does not allow dictators, thugs, and other repressors of humanity. And no France, either.
A key point that the left keeps trying to turn around.
Good piece!
It's GONE!!!
Worth mentioning, the success of the United Nations Emergency Force, stationed in the Sinai to maintain peace. When Egypt decided it was time for war (May, 67) they told UNEF bye bye, and UNEF beat a hasty retreat.
If people want on or off this list, please let me know.
Thanks knighthawk for the ping.
"The United Nations is a rectal threshold through which ill-mannered guests egress, but never go home."
"Any guest that treats you as discourteously in your own home --
deserves to get his . . . *** kicked (( link )) - - - all the way back to the Third World -
and possibly to the Fourth."
*** . . . my addition !
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.