Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

An excellent summary of the U.N. trap, highlighted with historical example. Let's hope a new Bilateralism replaces the worn collective security apparatus of the 20th century.
1 posted on 03/07/2003 1:02:07 PM PST by TonyInOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: TonyInOhio
Cheney has been vindicated.

Powell wrong again as ususal.
2 posted on 03/07/2003 1:06:43 PM PST by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TonyInOhio
The author blew it in the second paragraph.

The purpose of the UN is one world government.

It always amazes me how many people havn't read the UN charter.
3 posted on 03/07/2003 1:09:42 PM PST by taxed2death
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TonyInOhio
bttt
4 posted on 03/07/2003 1:10:37 PM PST by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TonyInOhio
Furthermore, it has led to a U.N. "inspection" regime that is dedicated to not finding serious Iraqi violations of U.N. Res. 1441, since finding such violations would lead to war.

8 posted on 03/07/2003 1:15:11 PM PST by w_over_w (Ahhh . . . ignorance is blix!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TonyInOhio
Haven't read the article yet, but if the process results in the restructuring or demise of the offending institution(s) I'll be happy.
10 posted on 03/07/2003 1:17:56 PM PST by polemikos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TonyInOhio
An excellent piece indeed! The UN should be confined to doing useful things like keeping track of worldwide epidemics. Decision making is far beyond their grasp.
11 posted on 03/07/2003 1:27:33 PM PST by PoisedWoman (Fed up with the liberal media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TonyInOhio; snopercod; joanie-f; TPartyType; mommadooo3
Bump.
12 posted on 03/07/2003 1:28:34 PM PST by First_Salute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TonyInOhio
I still contend that going to the UN was not a mistake, for the very reason that once we liberate Iraq and the UN is rendered impotent and irrelevant, there will not be so much as a peep from the large majority of the American people if/when we take any further actions that the UN does not like. In fact, it's high time that we had a President who told the UN where to stick it.
14 posted on 03/07/2003 1:39:47 PM PST by smokeyjon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TonyInOhio
Let's all remember that it was the DEMOCRATS who wanted UN approval.
15 posted on 03/07/2003 1:41:00 PM PST by Bryan24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TonyInOhio
Whether or not one supports war with Iraq, however, it is now clear that taking the Iraq problem to the United Nations was an unmitigated disaster.

He's wrong. It has shown the UN precisely for what it is. This will probably destroy not only the current UN, but probably also the EU (as the rift between "New" vs. "Old Europe" over Iraq has shown).

22 posted on 03/07/2003 2:26:51 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TonyInOhio
I despise the UN. I also despise Chirac and Schroeder and the money-grubbing Turks (who may ultimately prove to be very troublesome with the Kurds, too).

The funny thing is, my opposition to the UN and to our phony friends in leadership positions in Europe is why I ultimately disagree with the author's conclusions that going to the UN was a terrible mistake.

Don't get me wrong: I think Powell's expectations were completely wrongheaded in the second round with the UN. (I think he was naive.) On the other hand, I am personally delighted at the opposition which his approach has triggered. If the author of the article despises the UN as much as he seems to despise it, he should be delighted at the position which we are in now.

Before you regard me as only perverse, let me point out that the opposition which we have discovered has given us much-needed clarity in what may eventually prove to be the longest, nastiest war in American history.

So, I see Powell's mistake as a pretty wonderful mistake. Bush is even now snatching a very interesting and very important tactical victory for the U.S out of the jaws of a seeming defeat.

By that I mean that Powell's appeal to the UN is completely unmasking the UN as phony. Powell did not mean to do that, but Bush is able to see exactly what he needs to do at this point to win in the larger struggle. Even the average American is beginning to see this for a change. We need to defy the UN. We need to defy those who defy us.

My goodness, we are at war. We need to command respect. This is the only way we are going to win this war.

In short, we need to startle the world by declaring that that Resolution 1441 by the smug, sanctimonious UN was a fraud. This is precisely why it was approved unanimously by the Security Council. The UN does not possess the will to back up its threats when the primary nation at risk in the dispute is the United States. Gosh, the only reason why Resolution 1441 passed was in order that the UN might continue to claim to be relevant. But the Resolution just forestalled the inevitable, final confrontation on this very point.

The problem is, when push comes to shove, the UN is irrelevant (at best!). Resolution 1441 just delayed the more serious day of reckoning between Bush and the UN.

That day of reckoning is upon us. Bush is forcing the issue by demanding a vote which he apparently expects to lose in the Security Council. That's good, not bad. The author of the article wastes a lot of time explaining how bad the UN is only to miss the point of what Bush is doing. We need to quit playing the stupid diplomatic games--so, we need to serve notice that we are not playing the UN's games much longer.

I think that this confrontation will ultimately prove to be the end of the UN.

Bush is a globalist, but he is a sincere exponent of American freedom. He will gladly replace the UN with a coalition of the willing--led by America, of course. As he has repeatedly insisted in our war on terrorism, we want to know who our friends are. (The fact is, we are finding out pretty clearly who they are and who they aren't. We aren't making enemies. Rather, we are discovering them. It's pretty nifty in a rather awful way of cold, hard reality.)

Besides, I think we don't need to be playing footsie with guys like Chirac and Schroeder. I think they will wind up like Mussolini before all of this is over. (In the meantime, we don't need Old Europe as much as we need the New Europe led by the UK.)

24 posted on 03/07/2003 2:37:38 PM PST by the_doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: inquest
FYI
26 posted on 03/07/2003 2:56:03 PM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TonyInOhio
*sigh* I just got finished watching Colin Powell on 20/20. And he is still playing the reluctant warrior role.

Although I somewhat agree with those who say this UN fiasco has served a positive purpose in highlighting for all to see the gross inefficiency and irrelevance of the United Nations, I think by going to the United Nations when our national security is at risk we have effectively given up our sovereignty, albeit temporarily.

This may have been acceptable though repugnant before 9/11, but post 9/11 it is beyond risky, it is extremely dangerous. The President has walked the plank with Colin Powell long enough. He must move to make a stronger stance against the United Nations' sinking ship of fools, and abandon it altogether for the safety of the Nimitz.

41 posted on 03/07/2003 7:28:33 PM PST by FirstTomato (Don't pee on the couch then offer me your seat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson