[MadIvan]

The greatest newspaper in the world gets it right again: it is all over for the UN if they vote against war with Iraq. We may as well return to the 19th century system of a balance of power, which was the only thing that worked for an extended period (30 years) anyway.

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

Bump!

[Dog Gone]

At this point, most intelligent people realize that France, and its minions, would never vote for military action. Never. Certainly not one led by the Americans and British.

Consequently, the Brits and Americans will proceed to do the job without them.

My question is whether, after the UN and France are thoroughly disgraced, France will start throwing a temper tantrum to get noticed like Kim Jung Mentally-Il of North Korea.

[Hugin]

I was dissapointed that Powell did not specifically put the Security Council on notice that if they refuse to act they will be irrelevent. Something to the effect that we will no longer invest our time, energy and money in an institution that refuses to take itself seriously. He should have bluntly told them that this is not just Saddam's last chance, it is theirs as well.

[Leto]

The UN is well on the road to oblivion... thankfully. maybe they can move the mess to Brussels or Paris so the pretensious and irrelevant can pretend they're important.

[Leto]

The UN is well on the road to oblivion... thankfully. Maybe they can move the mess to Brussels or Paris.

[Paulie]

"...it is all over for the UN if they vote against war with Iraq."

In that case, I hope they vote with a resounding "NO!". Then -once and for all- we can say good riddence to the UN.

[AntiGuv]

I will reiterate a comment I made earlier in another thread. To all appearances, these opposing nations view the current standoff as a choice between: (a) the UN can limit American ‘hyperpower’; (b) the UN can enhance American ‘hyperpower’; (c) the UN may become irrelevant. If the option of (a) proves unattainable, I think all these nations would without hesitation prefer (c) rather than (b). I suspect that’s a point which may have been lost on many people who advance the UN's prospective irrelevance as if it's the key factor which will swing France or Russia in our favor. The Bush administration has framed the options as: (a) the UN can be relevant; (b) the UN can be irrelevant. That's not how these other nations view the situation. Now, one can argue with the wisdom of their viewpoint, which is another subject altogether.

Otherwise, mark my words, if the United Nations Security Council is consigned to the dustbin of history, the greatest ultimate loser will not be France, but rather Britain followed by Russia. The greatest ultimate winner will be China, then followed by the Franco-German axis... Cheers.

[Mister Baredog]

With the notable exceptions of Britain and Spain, the Security Council has failed to appreciate the devastating effect of September 11 on the world's remaining superpower

Thanks Ivan, they got the picture

[Mark17]

Ivan, I thought it was kind of a joke, but I did a google search, and Ataturk really was a Greek.

http://www.ataturk.com/life.htm

Regards.

[Mo1]

Hey Ivan, have you seen a tracscipt of Jack Straw's speech today at the UN .. I've been looking and can't find it yet

[honway]

The U.S. pays $4 billion annually to the U.N.

Maybe that $4 billion could be better spent by giving men and women in the Armed Forces a pay raise. That's where our security comes from, not from an association with France, Germany, or Communist China.

[Domestic Church]

"The greatest newspaper in the world gets it right again: it is all over for the UN"

They must be reading Freerepublic.com...we've all been talking this up for weeks.

[alrea]

The UN is simply a gathering of bureaucrats for the bureaucrats by the bureaucrats; enabling murderers, thieves and dictators all over the world.

[ggekko]

"19th century system of a balance of power, which was the only thing that worked for an extended period (30 years) anyway..."

It worked for 100 years from the Congress of Vienna until the start of WWI.

[Al B.]

Ivan, I happened to be near a TV when Jack Straw spoke. He was magnificent.

God bless the British, and thanks for the work you do here.

[ladyinred]

I love your posts Ivan! Thanks so much for keeping us informed from across the pond!

[patj]

Ivan, are people in your country boycotting French goods?

[BlessedByLiberty]

I want to express how impressed I am by your posts. Today, my daughter and I watched Jack Straw deliver deVillainyMan (as we refer to the French Minster) another Waterloo. The fact that deVillainyMan ran out of the SC meeting to blather with reporters is proof that Jack Straw hit his mark.

The press duplicity will not be forgotten either - they did not ask deVillainyMan one question regarding reports that France is aiding and abetting Iraq's regime with the acquistion of WMD's.

It is beyond reasonable to assert that the French/German alliance with the Iraqi regime is what will be the end of the U.N., not the United States. For those members of the U.N. who have continued to supply a murderer with munitions and an arsenol to harm hundreds of thousands of people will be revealed to the world when the United States of America once again, picks up the debris left by the policy of appeasement.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

Today many gutless countries grovel before the tyrant Saddam. Appease him and a dozen more will rise behind him. Grind him into fine powder and the world gets the message: "Act like this and you're next."

This will be a different and better world if the United States absolutely devastates the rotten Saddam and his henchmen. It needs to be impressive in a way not seen since August 1945 at Hiroshima. The thought of the full weight of U.S. military might showing up on their doorsteps should make blood evaporate from their sweat pores. Nobody picks on a ruthless bastard who can rain hell upon you.

Let it rain.

[CyberAnt]

I agree - and there was a story on FR last night about the possibility that Bush and Blair are planning to "suspend" membership in the UN - after they don't get their vote.

If we suspend membership, we could also withdraw our funds - and since we supply 60% of the costs of running the UN - I would say the UN wouldn't have much money to work with.

But ... we would have lots of money to fund a war!!

It's a brilliant plan and again the left has misunderestimated the strategery!!