Move over Constitution, we've got U.N. charter: war maneuvers play into hands of internationalists

WorldNetDaily.com | Friday, February 28, 2003 | By Diana Lynne

[JohnHuang2]

Friday, February 28, 2003

Quote of the Day by Sloth

[Kip Lange]

Said it a long time ago, said it many times since again, will continue to say it: We never should have gone to the U.N. in the first place. A mistake we are now, I believe, fully realizing.

[goldstategop]

As Charles Krauthammer wrote in an article this morning, its absurd the most powerful nation on Earth has to beg non-entities like Angola and Guinea for permission to defend itself in the face of Saddam Hussein. The UN Security Council's writ is not holy gospel. We should really be getting out of the UN and reasserting the sovereignty we thought we won back in 1776 when national independence was in the eye of history a pipe dream at the time.

[hotpotato]

Up late again, huh? :-)

Isn't the use of the UN now simply an extension of what began as containment of Iraq via the UN 12 years ago? Because 12 years ago, we rescued a country without being directly attacked ourselves. I see this as a special circumstance of unfinished business that began multilaterally.

I could be wrong but I think Bush would never allow the UN to stand in the way of our own security and I think he's just about to prove it. I will admit, however, that I find the polls which demonstrate the majority of US citizens wanting UN approval to be frustrating. That will quickly dissipate after the next terrorist attack on our soil, however.

[gulfcoast6]

The President knows and we know, 9-11 can will most likely happen again, he is sworn to protect us the best he can. I also say to heck with the UN. The reason we are being fought as we are now is because the President put it on them when he talk to them and it is payback time for them.

[David Isaac]

It is truly disheartening to see such a large portion of the population falling for the old "good cop - bad cop" (starring Bush, Clinton, and Bush) ruse.

Their have been those that have argued for years that there has been only one political battle in America. That being, the battle between those who wish to have a one-world government and those who do not. Any posturing by political and ideological parties is simply that.

Perhaps they are correct. While I may be or not be, favorable to this particular viewpoint, I still cannot dismiss the possibility. Sometimes one's designs can be seen in one's actions.

[SevenDaysInMay]

The post-communist world socialist movement (Animal Farmers), including the most corrupt neo-fascists such as China, N.K., Cuba, Islamia, France, Russia, South Africa, and California are seething that GW ( aka voters persuant to our Constitutional rule of law) rejected the favored works of XXX42 Clinton(s) undermining American national sovereignty and security, such as Kyoto and NAFTA as implimented, and strategic defense technologies.

The Democrats with their UN comrades have embarked on their Long March to recapture the White House, ultimately for XX44 Hillary (before her menopause unkindly reveals her Leninist manliness), with Bill continuing as a twisted member of the UN's politburo.

Our Constitution, now lead by XY43 GW and defended by our minority patriotic citizens, stands in their way. When the fascist Democrat politburo recaptures our government's police powers, more treaties will be structured so that Americans' rights are sacrificed on the alter of "world peace".

The second American republic will be known as the Peoples'
Republic of America, with Hillary Rodham - President/General Secretary for life.

[Consort]

By going to the UN, we demonstrated how ineffective that organization can be, and when we take care of (liberate) Iraq with or with UN endorsement, we will have domonstrated our sovereignty and independence, regardless of the outcome.

[Kip Lange]

I agree with that, but by going to the UN we also gave Saddam plenty of warning, plenty of time to screw with world opinion, plenty of time to arm, move troops, and generally do things that may cost American lives. And that blood will not only be on the UN's hands, but ours, to a degree, because we set the stalling process in motion by going there in the first place.

I know, I'm being overly-pessimistic...I just hate the UN, and it will REALLY tick me off if this increases US casualties (or the casualties of our allies, but American citizens come first when you're an American).

That being said, I think you're right, and I don't think it will make military action in Iraq more costly. But it *could*, and that's what ticks me off. These folks are bartering with the lives of US citizens. That doesn't make me happy.

[Jim Noble]

Authority to employ armed force is not the issue.

Only the Congress of the United States can do this:

"the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States."

All the resources of the country are hereby pledged...

That is what our armed forces must have when they go to war. When they do not have it, the result is disaster.

And since the only master in this house is We, the People of the united States, only Our Representatives in Congress assembled can deliver it.

Not the UN, not NATO, not the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces-only Congress.

[sheltonmac]

The actions of the Bush administration in its push for war have done nothing but legitimize the U.N., undermining our freedom and security as a nation.

[Free the USA]

fyi

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[TLBSHOW]

BUMP TO TRUTH........

[madfly]

I've been thinking about how much the coverage of these votes has hammered home to the sheeple some notion that the UN treaties are ALL to be considered moral and for the common good. Thinkng specifically of CEDAW.

[Mulder]

It is truly disheartening to see such a large portion of the population falling for the old "good cop - bad cop" (starring Bush, Clinton, and Bush) ruse.

Good analogy

Their have been those that have argued for years that there has been only one political battle in America. That being, the battle between those who wish to have a one-world government and those who do not.

I have to come to agree with this based on my reading and observations.

[Mulder]

The actions of the Bush administration in its push for war have done nothing but legitimize the U.N

They have been telling us that Iraq is a threat ever since 9/11.

As a result of scaring people, they've managed to massively increase the size and power of the federal government. But all of this legislation did nothing to deal with Iraq.

Instead, nothing had been done about Iraq.

What is wrong with this picture?

The only reason I can think of is the legitimization of the UN.

[GailA]

btt

[He Rides A White Horse]

Security Council members in New York continue to debate proposals on the table that range from declaring Saddam Hussein in material breach of Resolution 1441 and invading now, to giving Hussein another six months to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors.

They can debate all they want, Saddam Hussein is finished

war maneuvers play into hands of internationalists

We'll see after the UN waffles, and we do it anyway. Yeah, that's going to strengthen the UN.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Titus sees a hidden danger in the Bush administration's need to appease the international community by working through the diplomatic channels of the United Nations Security Council.

This was done to help Tony Blair, not to appease the international community.

Security Council members in New York continue to debate proposals on the table that range from declaring Saddam Hussein in material breach of Resolution 1441 and invading now, to giving Hussein another six months to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors.

We've already said repeatedly that we don't need another resolution.

Titus is considered one of America's leading constitutional scholars.

I've heard the same thing siad about Al Franken and Michael Moore. So what.

And in doing so, he argues, Bush and his predecessors play into the hands of internationalists who assert only the U.N. can authorize war and view the U.N. charter as trumping the U.S. Constitution.

Let the UN say that we can't go to war with Iraq, and then see what happens when we do. Remember all of those references about being 'irrelevant'.........they will be just that.