Another United Nations War?

President Bush Sr. proudly spoke of "The New World Order," a term used by those who promote one-world government under the United Nations. In going to war in 1991, he sought and received UN authority to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. He forcefully stated that this UN authority was adequate, and that although a congressional resolution was acceptable, it was entirely unnecessary and he would proceed regardless. At that time there was no discussion regarding a congressional declaration of war. The first Persian Gulf War therefore was clearly a UN, political war fought within UN guidelines, not for U.S. security – and it was not fought through to victory. The bombings, sanctions, and harassment of the Iraqi people have never stopped. We are now about to resume the active fighting. Although this is referred to as the second Persian Gulf War, it’s merely a continuation of a war started long ago, and is likely to continue for a long time even after Saddam Hussein is removed from power.

Our attitude toward the United Nations is quite different today compared to 1991. I have argued for years against our membership in the United Nations because it compromises our sovereignty. The U.S. has always been expected to pay an unfair percentage of UN expenses. I contend that membership in the United Nations has led to impractical military conflicts that were highly costly both in lives and dollars, and that were rarely resolved.

Our 58 years in Korea have seen 33,000 lives lost, 100,000 casualties, and over a trillion dollars in today’s dollars spent. Korea is the most outrageous example of our fighting a UN war without a declaration from the U.S. Congress. And where are we today? On the verge of a nuclear confrontation with a North Korean regime nearly out of control. And to compound the irony, the South Koreans are intervening in hopes of diminishing the tensions that exist between the United States and North Korea!

As bad as the Vietnam nightmare was, at least we left and the UN was not involved. We left in defeat and Vietnam remained a unified communist country. The results have been much more salutary. Vietnam is now essentially non-communist, and trade with the West is routine. We didn’t disarm Vietnam, we never counted their weapons, and so far no one cares. Peaceful relations have developed between our two countries, not by force of arms, but through trade and friendship. No United Nations, no war, and no inspections served us well – even after many decades of war and a million deaths inflicted on the Vietnamese in an effort by both the French and the United States to force them into compliance with Western demands.

But in this new battle with Iraq, our relationship with the United Nations and our allies is drawing a lot of attention. The administration now says it would be nice to have UN support, but it’s not necessary. The President argues that a unilateralist approach is permissible with his understanding of national sovereignty. But no mention is made of the fact that the authority to go to war is not a UN prerogative, and that such authority can only come from the U.S. Congress.

Although the argument that the United Nations cannot dictate to us what is in our best interest is correct, and we do have a right to pursue foreign policy unilaterally, it’s ironic that we’re making this declaration in order to pursue an unpopular war that very few people or governments throughout the world support. But the argument for unilateralism and national sovereignty cannot be made for the purpose of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions. That doesn’t make any sense. If one wants to enforce UN Security Council resolutions, that authority can only come from the United Nations itself. We end up with the worst of both worlds: hated for our unilateralism, but still lending credibility to the UN.

The Constitution makes it clear that if we must counter a threat to our security, that authority must come from the U. S. Congress. Those who believe, and many sincerely do, that the United Nations serves a useful function, argue that ignoring the United Nations at this juncture will surely make it irrelevant. Even with my opposition to the United Nations, I can hardly be pleased that its irrelevancy might come about because of our rush to war against a nation that has not aggressed against us nor poses any threat to us. From my viewpoint the worst scenario would be for the United Nations to sanction this war, which may well occur if we offer enough U.S. taxpayer money and Iraqi oil to the reluctant countries. If that happens we could be looking at another 58-year occupation, expanded Middle East chaos, or a dangerous spread of hostilities to all of Asia or even further.

With regard to foreign affairs, the best advice comes from our Founders and the Constitution. It is better to promote peace and commerce with all nations, and exclude ourselves from the entangling, dangerous, complex, and unworkable alliances that come with our membership in the United Nations.

From Republican Congressman Ron Paul's article, "Another United Nations War?"

"... in going to war in 1991, (the first President Bush) sought and received UN authority to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. He forcefully stated that this UN authority was adequate, and that although a congressional resolution was acceptable, it was entirely unnecessary and he would proceed regardless. At that time there was no discussion regarding a congressional declaration of war. The first Persian Gulf War therefore was clearly a UN, political war fought within UN guidelines, not for U.S. security..."

"...Our attitude toward the United Nations is quite different today compared to 1991. I have argued for years against our membership in the United Nations because it compromises our sovereignty. The U.S. has always been expected to pay an unfair percentage of UN expenses. I contend that membership in the United Nations has led to impractical military conflicts that were highly costly both in lives and dollars, and that were rarely resolved..."

"...(our government) now says it would be nice to have UN support, but it’s not necessary..." "...The Constitution makes it clear that if we must counter a threat to our security, that authority must come from the U. S. Congress..."

**********************

If we're truly going to war for the security of the United States, we need a Declaration of War from Congress. So what's the big deal? Is it too much to ask, expecting our elected representatives to follow the law?

Saying "Iraq violated United Nations resolutions" isn't good enough, especially since the majority of members of the U.N. don't want us to enforce those resolutions with force.

1. The fundamentally simplistic analyses Paul offers of the Korean and Vietnamese wars do nothing to support his case.

2. There is a big difference between having UN resolutions as a reason for American policy, and having them as a pretext to achieve our own policy goals, consistent with the long-term security and economic interests of the United States. I have seen nothing to convince me that President Bush is not engaged in the latter course.

3. A hands off approach to foreign policy would have been wonderful...in 1916. The damage is done. We either accept the responsabilities we have since incurred, or reap far greater costs than 9/11 in the future.

Ron Paul ought to have been Woodrow Wilson's gadfly, not George Bush's.

"... in going to war in 1991, (the first President Bush) sought and received UN authority to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait..."

**********************

Our President should never have asked the authority of the U.N. to send the United States to war.

"Daddy, can I please go?!" is not the mark of a sovereign nation.

Forget it. Some liberals already tried to claim that Congress hadn't specifically declared war but lost in court because a couple of days after the election, they DID autorize the president to use military action agains Iraq. The court ruled correctly that Congress did indeed issue a defacto declaration of war.

BTW, Ron Paul tried the same thing against x42 and lost because Congress voted to give x42 the money he specifically asked for to persue his private little war in Kosovo.

A hands off approach to foreign policy would have been wonderful...in 1916. The damage is done. We either accept the responsabilities we have since incurred, or reap far greater costs than 9/11 in the future.

Ron Paul ought to have been Woodrow Wilson's gadfly, not George Bush's.

**********************

There hasn't been a revision of our law between Wilson's time and our own.

President Bush is still sworn to uphold the Constitution.

Pointing out that Bush isn't the first to violate our law doesn't excuse the violation.

"But no mention is made of the fact that the authority to go to war is not a UN prerogative, and that such authority can only come from the U.S. Congress. "

Ron Paul is a bitter repetitious self serving fool. Congressional authorization has been discussed at length. Even if the 1991 authorization and cease fire’s considered expired, the two congressional authorizations and the year and a half public debate since more than satisfy the sprit, if not the letter, of the Constitution. And don’t say that the word "war" has to be inserted. This has been ruled on.

As far as his claim of a "rush to war" (over 12 years), that Iraq "has not aggressed against us nor poses any threat to us" (after firing on our jets and building WMD) or that we’ll have "expanded Middle East chaos" (after we forward deploy an attack force in Iraq), my dog makes more sense when he debates.

Some liberals already tried to claim that Congress hadn't specifically declared war but lost in court because a couple of days after the election, they DID autorize the president to use military action agains Iraq.

**********************

Congress is responsible for deciding war.

The "Authorization of Force" did not decide war, it delegated to the Executive Branch the power to decide if we were going to war OR NOT.

"Yes or No" is the rightful decision of Congress, not of the President.

Strangely enough, Jeane Kirkpatrick made President H. Bush's Iraq decision the jewel in the crown of her complaint against UN at CPAC 2000, I believe.

She referred the audience to Margaret Thatcher's biography in which is detailed Bush's decision to stay her hand (where assistance to Kuwait was concerned) pending a "mother may I? Yes you may." from the UN Security Council.

At the time, Kirkpatrick was adamant that our submitting our national sovereignty (as well as the de facto submission of national sovereignty of any nation invaded like Kuwait) to the UN was absolutely WRONG. She cited the "one-nation one-vote" nature of the Security Council ... nations with little or nothing in the way of financial support or LIVES to put on the line deciding what the US would ultimately do.

Naturally, she'd changed her tune entirely by last year ... instead of consistently excoriating the UN, oohing and aahing over what great friends they turned out to be as we beat our chests and pummeled the third-worlders of Afghanistan in a great show of vengeance against Osama which accomplished nothing save the re-upping of the drug trades, reinstallation of the thugs who'd always been friendly to the "former Soviet" drug trade and obliteration of the last of those who'd consistently resisted the old "Evil Empire".

"...if the 1991 authorization and cease fire’s considered expired, the two congressional authorizations and the year and a half public debate since more than satisfy the sprit, if not the letter, of the Constitution...

**********************

.Congressional "spirit" resolutions and public debate are not a substitutute for an official decision on war.

"Oh, go to war if you want to" is plainly passing the buck from Congress to the Executive Branch.

That's illegal.

"The "Authorization of Force" did not decide war, it delegated to the Executive Branch the power to decide if we were going to war OR NOT... That's illegal. "

Get a law degree, become a supreme court justice, and maybe your fringe opinion will means something. Until then, the authorization of force has been ruled to be constitutionally consistent. The founders would never have tied the hands of our nation as you would like if they could have envisioned international terrorism, WMDs and the shrinkage of the world from innovations in transportation.

President Bush Sr. proudly spoke of "The New World Order," a term used by those who promote one-world government under the United Nations

Bush Sr. never used the term "New World Order" to mean one-world government under the U.N. nor did he advocate one-world government under the control of the U.N. In fact I'm not sure I know of anyone who advocates that.

President Bush Sr. proudly spoke of "The New World Order," a term used by those who promote one-world government

Yeah, and "Free Republic" is a term used by people here to refer to an Internet forum. Does that mean that every time someone strings together the words 'free' and 'republic' they mean this forum? I doubt it; Benjamin Austin used the term "free republic" in 1819.

It is perfectly possible to speak of a "new world order" without meaning one-world government. One might simply mean that the old order -- whatever it was -- had been tossed out. If NATO goes down the tubes because of all this Frenchling behavior, we will have a new world order. That will not mean that the UN will take over, or even the French. It's too soon to say what it will mean.

I'm tired of Ron Paul acting like I'm too stupid to know what words mean. I wish he would go away with this "New World Order" crap. Yeah, there are people who want World Government. So what? They don't own the words, and "new world order" is not a brand name for any particular alternative. And it is insulting to everyone's intelligence to pretend that everyone who uses that term means the same thing by it. It's just three damned words.

At the time, Kirkpatrick was adamant that our submitting our national sovereignty (as well as the de facto submission of national sovereignty of any nation invaded like Kuwait) to the UN was absolutely WRONG. She cited the "one-nation one-vote" nature of the Security Council ... nations with little or nothing in the way of financial support or LIVES to put on the line deciding what the US would ultimately do.

**********************

That's the complaint I have, after I get passed the rant about the violation of our law.

Our Founders gave the several States representation in our National government, but it was made law that each of those States would have a Republican form of government, themselves.

The U.N. is "representative" only by reputation. The majority of it's members are not free societies.

Worse, there is no doubt that the U.N. does not overly concern itself with the interests of the United States. In fact, to most of it's member States, America is considered an enemy.

That is not the sort of place we need to look for authorization of anything.

The founders would never have tied the hands of our nation as you would like if they could have envisioned international terrorism, WMDs and the shrinkage of the world from innovations in transportation.

**********************

The Founders provided a way of fixing provisions of the Constitution that were no longer relevent. There are lawful ways of doing that.

Deciding that provisions of the Constitution need to be changed is not to be decided by our leaders.

You advocate tyranny, elfman2.

I like what you say and this time is no exception.

Ron Paul is one if the finest examples of a "Republican In Name Only", out there. Of course I don't think he makes any bones about it. His Libber-tarianism, has sure been at the surface ever since 911, and as you stated is really wearing thin.

Give the "Libbers" some slack though, FreeRepublic is about the only place left where they can get any attention these days. It certainly isn't at the polling places.

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.