THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: Twilight of the UN

The Daily Telegraph ^ | March 8, 2003 | The Daily Telegraph

[MadIvan]

The greatest newspaper in the world gets it right again: it is all over for the UN if they vote against war with Iraq. We may as well return to the 19th century system of a balance of power, which was the only thing that worked for an extended period (30 years) anyway.

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

Bump!

[Dog Gone]

At this point, most intelligent people realize that France, and its minions, would never vote for military action. Never. Certainly not one led by the Americans and British.

Consequently, the Brits and Americans will proceed to do the job without them.

My question is whether, after the UN and France are thoroughly disgraced, France will start throwing a temper tantrum to get noticed like Kim Jung Mentally-Il of North Korea.

[Hugin]

I was dissapointed that Powell did not specifically put the Security Council on notice that if they refuse to act they will be irrelevent. Something to the effect that we will no longer invest our time, energy and money in an institution that refuses to take itself seriously. He should have bluntly told them that this is not just Saddam's last chance, it is theirs as well.

[Leto]

The UN is well on the road to oblivion... thankfully. maybe they can move the mess to Brussels or Paris so the pretensious and irrelevant can pretend they're important.

[Leto]

The UN is well on the road to oblivion... thankfully. Maybe they can move the mess to Brussels or Paris.

[Paulie]

"...it is all over for the UN if they vote against war with Iraq."

In that case, I hope they vote with a resounding "NO!". Then -once and for all- we can say good riddence to the UN.

[scooby321]

I think we need to make the French and Germans look at the horrors we find like Ike did to the Germans in WW2

[Ole Okie]

I was dissapointed that Powell did not specifically put the Security Council on notice that if they refuse to act they will be irrelevent.

President Bush emphatically gave them notice in a Helen-Thomasless press conference last night. Powell didn't have to repeat it.

[AntiGuv]

I will reiterate a comment I made earlier in another thread. To all appearances, these opposing nations view the current standoff as a choice between: (a) the UN can limit American ‘hyperpower’; (b) the UN can enhance American ‘hyperpower’; (c) the UN may become irrelevant. If the option of (a) proves unattainable, I think all these nations would without hesitation prefer (c) rather than (b). I suspect that’s a point which may have been lost on many people who advance the UN's prospective irrelevance as if it's the key factor which will swing France or Russia in our favor. The Bush administration has framed the options as: (a) the UN can be relevant; (b) the UN can be irrelevant. That's not how these other nations view the situation. Now, one can argue with the wisdom of their viewpoint, which is another subject altogether.

Otherwise, mark my words, if the United Nations Security Council is consigned to the dustbin of history, the greatest ultimate loser will not be France, but rather Britain followed by Russia. The greatest ultimate winner will be China, then followed by the Franco-German axis... Cheers.

[Mister Baredog]

With the notable exceptions of Britain and Spain, the Security Council has failed to appreciate the devastating effect of September 11 on the world's remaining superpower

Thanks Ivan, they got the picture

[Hugin]

Still, it would have been nice if he said it to their face.

[Mark17]

Ivan, I thought it was kind of a joke, but I did a google search, and Ataturk really was a Greek.

http://www.ataturk.com/life.htm

Regards.

[Welsh Rabbit]

George Will called it (in a recent column), "permission from the powerless". And it's just that. If the UN wants to pretend to be relevent, they better just play along.

[Mo1]

Hey Ivan, have you seen a tracscipt of Jack Straw's speech today at the UN .. I've been looking and can't find it yet

[XJarhead]

At this point, most intelligent people realize that France, and its minions, would never vote for military action. Never. Certainly not one led by the Americans and British.

Read the new Brit resolution carefully. It does not specifically authorize military force. The French could vote in favor of it, or even abstain, and not break a pledge.

The U.S. and Britain have set a very, very neat trap. All the new resolution does is set a deadline without specifying consequences. Whoever votes against it could legitimately be accused of favoring indefinite inspections. And they can't defend the vote on the grounds that it authorizes force because it does not.

But once they vote it down, they've given the U.S. and Britain a great excuse to say that the S.C. has been unreasonable, and won't set deadlines.

[honway]

The U.S. pays $4 billion annually to the U.N.

Maybe that $4 billion could be better spent by giving men and women in the Armed Forces a pay raise. That's where our security comes from, not from an association with France, Germany, or Communist China.

[Domestic Church]

"The greatest newspaper in the world gets it right again: it is all over for the UN"

They must be reading Freerepublic.com...we've all been talking this up for weeks.

[alrea]

The UN is simply a gathering of bureaucrats for the bureaucrats by the bureaucrats; enabling murderers, thieves and dictators all over the world.