Saddam's gift to the world

WorldNetDaily / Commentary

Saddam's gift to the world
Henry Lamb

Posted: March 15, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Saddam Hussein's greatest gift to the world may well be the collapse of the United Nations. The impasse in the Security Council over what the words "serious consequences" mean in resolution 1441, is highly visible evidence that the U.N., as the world's peacekeeper, is totally irrelevant.

In its preamble, the U.N. Charter says it was formed to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." The truth is, that the U.N. has done more to prevent peace, than to prevent war. In its entire history, the U.N. Security Council has voted to authorize military intervention only three times: in Korea, in the 1991 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and in the 2002 intervention in Afghanistan – all at the request of the United States.

While hundreds of thousands of people were being hacked to death in Rwanda, the U.N. talked, but did nothing. While ethnic cleansing was occurring in the Balkans, the U.N. talked, but did nothing. The chronology of slaughter during the life of the U.N. is inescapable evidence of the U.N.'s abject failure to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war."

Saddam's refusal to comply with 18 U.N. resolutions shines the spotlight of reality on the U.N.'s irrelevance. This unintended gift from Saddam, allows us to get on with making the world a safer place for all.

Since it is now abundantly clear that the world cannot look to the U.N., the United States has no choice but to accept the role it has played since World War II. Like it or not, we are the world's policemen. It is time to stop wasting resources at the U.N., in hopes it will be what it can never become.

The attack on the World Trade Center has forever changed the foundation of U.S. foreign policy. The U.N.'s spectacular failure forces the United States to look to the future from a new perspective: national defense first, and advancement of U.S. national interests.

To achieve both of these objectives, friendly, cooperative relations with all nations that share these objectives is a must. After all, these are the same objectives that virtually every nation pursues. More than 20 nations have signed on to support America's efforts in Iraq, even without U.N. support, because they realize that our goals advance their national interests and promote their national defense.

France, Germany, Russia and China choose not to support the U.S. effort because the elimination of Saddam Hussein will not advance their national interests. So be it.

The United States cannot look to the U.N. to provide solutions to the rising North Korean conflict – nor to the rising conflict with Iran. Using the same principle that has guided the Bush administration in dealing with Iraq – military power as the last resort – the U.S. should exhaust diplomatic efforts to help end the nuclear threat posed by both of these nations. At the end of the day, the United States should be prepared to do whatever is necessary to prevent their anticipated weapons of mass destruction from ever being used.

It will take perhaps a decade for the world to realize that we are entering a new, post-U.N. era. The only way America can prove to the world that we are not the "great Satan," as taught by Saddam and Osama, is to demonstrate the principles of freedom at home, and in our relationships with the nations that want our help.

We cannot leave Afghanistan to fall victim to the next, most powerful warlord. We need to help them discover the principles of freedom on which to build democratic institutions that ensure self governance by the people. The Iraqis long to escape the iron fist of tyranny which has enslaved them for generations. It is in our self-interest to help them.

Freedom, as America has demonstrated, is the best hope for peace and prosperity in the world.

The U.N. has never been about freedom. It has always been about amassing the power to control world events. When government controls the people – whether the government is a Saddam, the Taliban or a world government – there is no freedom. Freedom can exist only when people control their government through an orderly process which results in policies the people want, administered by officials the people choose. Freedom requires a system that allows the people to change their leaders, without bloodshed, whenever they wish.

President Bush believes that "Freedom is not America's gift to the world; freedom is God's gift to humanity." This is the principle that should guide our post-9/11, post-U.N. foreign policy.

THIS article at WND

Freedom, as America has demonstrated, is the best hope for peace and prosperity in the world.
The U.N. has never been about freedom. It has always been about amassing the power to control world events.
===============

Guys, As Henry writes, the U.N. is trying it's very best to destroy the beacon to freedom that the U.S. of A. IS. To IMPOSE their version of world tyranny. Peace and love, George.

The United Nations has served primarily to protect and defend tyrants and dictators.

And now -- let's face it -- major powers in the UN are enemies to the United States of America.

The U.S. veto power in the UN will serve to protect Americans in the short run, but ... some form of wooden stake to the heart will be needed to end it.

A fundamental flaw in the UN is the "one country, one vote" attitude for all except the five permanent members of the Security Council. When coupled with the mantras for "self-determination" and "de-colonialization" of the world's peoples, this led to a proliferation of irresponsible countries and UN votes.

The US is in the situation of a parent who says to his kids, "I'll treat you as adults, and we'll all have a vote." Thats fine if the kids are mature adults, but not if they are irresponsible children.

With the best of intentions, although the result has been forseeable for at least 40 years, we have followed a similar policy in the UN. The inmates are running the asylum, and one of their main desires is to cause trouble for us just to prove they can.

This situation is not reversible within the rules of the UN. Hence, it is necessary to act outside of the UN.

We really ought to drop the UN.

Perhaps there should be a "League of free nations". But only nations that have a free press and free elections should be allowed in. The rest are irrelevant and shouldn't be given any say whatsoever in the affairs of the world.

And even among free nations, war is not something that can be done by committee. It's too easy for pacifists and economic ties and leaders compromised by dealing with the tyrant to block progress. A league of nations is just the wrong way to go.

I think what will really bring down the UN house of cards will be the evidence of illegal weapon and equipment sales to Saddam by France, Germany, Russia and China. What other reason would they have for so vehemently opposing our removal of Sadddam from power.
They have a lot to hide, if this is indeed the case, and evidence of permement members of the Security Council acting in this manner would shatter what remaining faith many countries have in the validity of the UN.
Not that I ever thought they were that "valid" anyway...

I wish I had the source handy-perhaps a freeper reading this will-but someone once sat down and figured out how many wars , armed conflicts, revolutions, counterrevolutions, etc, have been waged since the founding of the UN. The figures , as near as I can recall, were almost 300 armed conflicts since the founding, and that on average, 40 armed conflcits are being waged simultaneously in any given year. Most of these were small scale,localized conflicts in various parts of the Third World, which is why they can be so easily overlooked by both the UN and the media.

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.