Skip to comments.Who would you turn to ... the US or the UN?
Posted on 07/30/2002 4:33:38 AM PDT by ejdrapes
Who would you turn to ... the US or the UN?
The new Archbishop of Canterbury will only support an attack on Iraq if it is sanctioned by the United Nations. As they say in the USA: Go tell it to the Marines.
The Bish should stick to The Simpsons. The UN is an organisation which has long since outlived its usefulness. These days it is little more than a vehicle for tinpot despots to strut the world stage pretending to be statesmen.
Britain, the USA, Israel and any other nation with a shred of decency should have pulled out of the UN after the recent, so-called anti-racism conference in South Africa, which turned into a grotesque orgy of anti-Jewish hatred, orchestrated by the usual corrupt cabal of African and Middle Eastern tyrants.
All you need to know about the United Nations is that Syria, a state sponsor of terrorism, sits on the security council. The West is forced to take lectures on human rights from countries such as Cuba, Libya and the Sudan.
Israel and the US have to endure condemnation from regimes which openly support Islamic terrorists, while remaining silent on anti-Jewish violence. So do you really think George W Bush is going to ask Syrias permission to go after Saddam?
Without Americas military and financial muscle, the United Nations is worthless. Bush knows it, the UN knows it. What is the UN going to do if America invades Iraq unilaterally send a peacekeeping force, comprised of the might of Luxembourg, Liberia, Laos and Lesotho?
Theres no point splitting hairs over whether an attack on Iraq would be justified under an outstanding resolution passed at the time of the Gulf War. Dubya simply isnt interested. And neither are the people of America.
When, not if, the missiles start flying in Iraq, America will be acting in self-defence not just of its homeland but of democracy itself. After September 11, the US is entitled to get its retaliation in first.
Saddam Hussein is a clear and present danger. He has weapons of mass destruction and is mad enough to use them. Those opposing war in Iraq, especially in Britain, are like those who wanted to appease Hitler in the 1930s.
Not for nothing is Winston Churchill one of George W Bushs heroes. While Saddam remains in power the stability of the world is in danger. Removing him and installing a democratic government is win-win-win.
ONE, the threat of nuclear, chemical and biological holocaust is hugely diminished.
TWO, control of the worlds second biggest oil reserves passes to a regime friendly to the West removing the dependence on the duplicitous Saudis.
THREE, comprehensive victory in Iraq serves as a mind-concentrating lesson to other rogue states that countries which harbour and sponsor terrorism can expect no mercy.
Since September 11, the only question has been: Which side are you on? Much as European sophisticates may scorn, Dubya has summed it up with clarity and simplicity. This is a war between good and evil. America is in it for the long haul. And Britain should give her whatever support she asks.
Most of the world has, predictably, gone missing since the dust settled on the World Trade Center and The Pentagon. The US can and will go it alone if necessary. But anyone who has spent any time in America recently will appreciate how much British support, both militarily and morally, is valued by them.
Tony Blair has to keep on making the case for our involvement in the war on Iraq, in particular, and the wider war on terror, in general. He has to confront and defeat the anti-American nay-sayers and their useful idiots like the Archbishop of Canterbury.
When push comes to shove, it boils down to this simple question. If Britain were to be attacked, to whom should we turn for help the United States or the United Nations?
|Great post and a BUMP...|
Without Americas military and financial muscle, the United Nations is worthless.
I'm longing for leadership that will kill these noxious weeds. Let's pull all our funding and apply the money to defense of our borders.
Great Idea! Unfortunately, however, Washington does not want the borders secured. Had that been the objective the Border Patrol would have been sufficiently funded to do the job, American landowners would not be prohibited from defending their lands from invasion and destruction from the invading hoards, and those ILLEGALs already here would have been sent packing with specific instructions that should they be found on American soil again they would become fertilizer.
MACV SOCOM, PhuBai/Hue '65-'66
Agreed! Hence my longing...
Why? Each one of those newly created nations gets a vote and a voice in the UN Assembly. When items like the ICC or Kyoto need ratifying, or when Israel and the US need to be outvoted- it is much easier to do with many more little votes than with a few. Consider- when Kosovo gets its own vote- that will be another Muslim Nation added to the fray.
My personal feeling on the EU is- they display all the traits of a nation, they have a common currency, a common set of laws, no distinguishable borders and a Parliment. Should they be considered one nation or many? Should they get one vote or many? It makes you realize that the UN really is cozy with the EU and it gives them an advantage to have a de facto huge Nation (on an economic scale of the US- at least in the same ballpark) that has 15 times as many votes as the USA. Think about the ICC and the Kyoto protocol. Neither would have been ratified had it not been for all the individual little European Nations voting for it. Likewise, when we compare CO2 emissions between nations, the US is compared to Germany, France etc when to be fair, we should combine all the EU Nations as a whole and their emissions and use that number. They should realistically only have one vote in the UN OR California, New York, Texas, Florida etc to fifty should all get individual votes.
I would also likewise lean heavily toward having Islam officially recognized as a nation (One Nation) by the UN. They declare themselves to be so whenever it's conveniant anyway. If something happens in Israel, Muslims in the Phillipines take offense and declare that war has been declared on them also. They have a common culture and they believe that a nation is under religion not the other way around. We should talk them into becoming one nation and then their vote gets diluted in the UN like ours does. There is absolutely no objective reason why a nation like the United States should have it's vote counted in the same fashion as a vote from East Timor- that just defies reason.