Replies

But wait a minute, I thought that is what the U.N. is for, to bring conflicts between countries to a reasonable resolution.

Are the Chinese saying that the U.N. has no relevance today?

Are the Chinese saying that the U.N. has no relevance today?

Verrry interesting!!!!

I don't understand? The Democrats(Ted Kennedy et al.) want multilateral cooperation on Iraq and unilateral cooperation on Korea. What kind of horse hockey is that?

But wait a minute, I thought that is what the U.N. is for, to bring conflicts between countries to a reasonable resolution.

No, silly. You obviously don't understand the UN groundrules. Pay close attention.

Rule #1. When the U.S. has problems with Iraq and is prepared to handle them unilaterally, UN Rule #2,568,954 says . . . No, no, big boy. Iraq has to be handled multi-laterally and you have to kiss Guinea's ass besides China's, Russia's, and France's.
Rule #2. When the U.S. has problems with North Korea and, trying to follow Rule #1, is prepared to handle them multi-laterally, UN Rule #4,578,962 says . . . No, no, big boy. North Korea has to be handled unilaterally because the Chinese and Russkies want to know if you've got the balls to blow the sh*t out of the North Koreans so they can make their long-term plans to beat the sh*t out of you in a decade or so and they need to know how much gorilla juice you've got.
Rule #3. UN Rule #SCREWTHEUSA, commonly called the catch-all rule, says anything the U.S. wants must be fought with any and all silly-ass UN rules because, otherwise, they're liable to actually do something positive in this world by themselves and realize they don't need us bureaucrats.

Now, silly, do you think you can remember those simple rules?

Now, seriously, I hope to hell someone in GW's Administration is taking note of all this. There's something sinister going on. France starts to softly and slowly beat an anti-American drum in the spring of 2002. Each day it gets louder and faster. Then French officials start having more and more meetings with the Germans. Then Germany starts their anti-American bit -- I know Schroeder was behind in the election but even then his maneuvering was sure ballsy as hell. Then France starts meeting with the Chinese and Russkies. Then North Korea erupts and all the above are deathly quiet where they've been screaming to beat hell about Iraq.

Could they be trying to affect the Presidential election in 2004? Like maybe they can make it appear to U.S. voters that our foreign policies are failures -- even though one can't be diplomatic when only one side of a debate is willing to make an honest effort? Like maybe they'd prefer to deal with a Clinton-clone instead of another four years of GW? And look at what they'd have to face if GW was successful . . . God forbid, they might have to face another eight years of a GW-clone.

Far-fetched? You're probably right. I'd still feel better if someone would keep the idea in mind. Something doesn't pass the sniff test.

No, no, no. You see, the U.N. wants NOTHING to do with the the N. Korea issue because it is scared s**tless of that little dwarf with the buck teeth. The U.N. wants the U.S. to handle it alone. What a joke: The U.N. demands that IT be involved with the Irag question (because Iraq doesn't scare the U.N.), but insists that the U.S. deal alone with N. Korea (which DOES scare the U.N.). We have got to get out of the U.N. There is no other answer to all of this.