WOULD YOU HELP ME TAKE BACK THE SENATE??
Posted on 10/02/2002 7:46:00 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Pardon me, but I don´t give a damn if the United Nations passes fifty resolutions defining the terms the United States of America can attack Iraq or not. The issue being debated is the right of this nation, independent of all others, to protect its citizens against any threat, internal or external. We do not need the United Nations´ permission to do that. We never did. This nation has been at war with Iraq since 1990 when it invaded Kuwait and Congress authorized a military response.
A state of belligerency has existed ever since then.
The US Constitution begins "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Our homeland was attacked on September 11, 2001. The need to provide for the common defense has become our priority. Failing to achieve that, we put our nation, our freedom, and our lives, at risk.
As for UN resolutions, they are a joke and a very bad one when it comes to the sovereignty of our nation and all others. Most certainly, we have seen Iraq ignore sixteen resolutions with impunity. Throughout the ugly history of the UN, the might and muscle of the US has been the single factor to maintain peace in the world. Even a casual look at its corruption, rampant racism, and indifference to human rights should have rendered the United Nations the laughingstock of the world long ago.
Its member nations have routinely ignored the United Nations while paying lip service to its alleged authority. It has not managed to stop a single war since its founding in 1947. The US had to do the fighting in Korea and have participated in so-called "peace keeping" every since. Without asking "permission" we swatted Grenada, bombed but missed Khadaffi, and jailed Panama´s Noriega when they got out of hand. And the world is better off for it.
The interesting thing is that George W. Bush seems to understand this better than anyone. In September he stood at the rostrum of the UN´s General Assembly and told the diplomats the UN was perilously close to being "irrelevant" and impotent. Let us hark back to the halcyon days of the League of Nations (which the US Senate wisely refused to join) and recall how it totally failed to ward off World War One. As some point, Americans may begin to understand that the United Nations is an instrument of global domination and enslavement.
I am no historian, but I know enough to draw a few conclusions. One, it is the nature of men to aggregate themselves into nations. Two, democracy is still a fairly new concept for most nations, which explains why so many people are still forced to accept life under a dictator or an authoritarian regime. Three, it is the nature of the occasional psychopathic dictator who, when not butchering his own people, to rally them to go to war with a neighboring state. Saddam is the perfect example of this and he has been tolerated too long.
We, the United States, are the only nation with the power and the guts to go kill Saddam. I put it to you that we do not need any permission from the United Nations, nor from any other nation, though it would be prudent to secure their support. When we went into Afghanistan and rid it of the Taliban and began chasing the al Qaeda up one hill and down another, nations in that area of the world were happy to have us remove this menace.
Congress hasn´t voted on a Declaration of War since the beginning of World War Two in 1941. Of its 435 members, 58 belong to the Democratic Socialists of America, dedicated to communism. Two of them, Rep. David Bonier (D-MI) and Rep. James A. McDermott (D-WA) were in Iraq recently. The latter accused the President of deceiving Americans and urged that we accept the truthfulness of Saddam Hussein.
With the exception of the support of Great Britain, a nation that remembers what it was like to build and be a great empire, I don´t give a damn about what the United Nations and others who will not do the actual fighting have to say on the matter of our dispensing some long overdue justice to crazy Saddam.
I hope we stay in the area a long time (we have been in Europe since the end of WWII and in Korea since the truce there in the late 50s). I hope we take control of their oil to help create a viable economy in Iraq. I hope we help with the overthrow of Syria´s dictator and Iran´s ayatollahs. I hope we get to watch the House of Saud implode and make it clear to the Kuwaitis and other little sheikdoms that we are going to help them write nice, new constitutions that grant real freedom to their subjects, er, citizens.
The kind of power the United States possesses is meaningless if not implemented to insure a better future both at home and abroad. Toot! Toot! The Freedom Train is leaving the station. Get on board or get run over.
Which they are. A leech on Uncle Sam's fanny.
President Bush's speech to the UN was great. His comments since then have pretty much mirrored what he said to the UN. I really like that guy.
What he said was:
The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant? -- President Bush at the UN, 09/12/02This was the most up-front challenge ever uttered by a US President to the legitimacy of the UN. The UN is offered the opportunity to bless the US sovereign application of self-defense if it wishes to maintain a figleaf of credibility. If not, that's OK because we will be acting regardless.
I think the writer of the article pretty much made a mockery of the UN's credibility.
Like President Bush did in his speech, but in a more diplomatic way and polite way. :-D
No. We are violating no international law. Indeed, the right to self-defense is recognized in the UN Charter. Furthermore, the President's oath to defend the American people would take precedence over any "international" commitment if there were a conflict.
Why did bush turn it over if he was going to go renegade?
1. The President didn't "turn over" anything. He told the UN he intended to enforce Security Council resolution and that the UN had a chance of maintaining "relevancy" if they got on board. 2. "Go renegade"? What does that mean? If the UN security council doesn't wish to enforce their own resolutions, we can live with that. We'll take care of it. Just because the European sophisticates are too self-absorbed to take part in the defence of their civilization, doesn't make us renegade for defending ours.
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.