Post by Robert Tracy on Mar 11, 2003 17:46:10 GMT -5
The best thing that could happen would be for the U.N. to reject the American/British resolution for declaring war on Iraq -- provided that the U.S. follows through with war and successfully destroys Saddam Hussein and everyone associated with his regime.
The U.N. is worse than irrelevant. It provides moral aid and comfort to violent terrorist states such as Iran, North Korea and Iraq as well as potential enemies such as China and Russia. The U.N. represents one gigantic and continuous excuse for dictators to buy time and make fools of the free world. Only the unjust can benefit from such a body, and only the just can suffer by enduring its pretense at governance. That's exactly what we have witnessed for the last nine months or so.
It was a terrible mistake for the Bush Administration to enlist the support of the U.N. in the first place. It was not a tactical or strategic error, but a fundamental one in that it granted the U.N. status it does not legally or morally deserve. The Bush Administration is getting what it deserves when rebuked by France, Germany, China, Turkey and Russia -- though not for any of the reasons the opponents of the Bush Administration claim. It’s not that the Bush Administration was too arrogant; it wasn’t self-assertive enough. In the beginning, President Bush should have said: "We're going after Iraq. Those who want to join us are welcome. Those who don't -- get the hell out of our way."
If the U.N. votes against the U.S. going to war and the U.S. goes to war anyway -- and if our military is left free (unlike during the Vietnam War) to crush the regime into the dust -- then the U.N. will be massively and perhaps permanently discredited. The U.N. actually had to be discredited sooner or later. It enjoys no constitutional authority over the U.S., as the Bush Administration will eloquently demonstrate if it goes to war against the U.N.'s wishes. Such a defeat will force supporters of the U.N. to finally reveal their actual motive: world government. In practice this means: the law of socialist, nationalist and dictatorial (even terrorist) states over the law of the American Constitution. Or, put another way: a world government in which we are ruled equally by our Congress, our President, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, the mullahs of Iran and the volatile Communists of North Korea.
Who wants to defend giving the U.N. legal control over the free world? I’d like to see Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, or Ted Kennedy take on that issue. It will be good to have the real debate out in the open, once and for all. For this reason I look forward to a strong "no" vote from the U.N.
by Michael J. Hurd, PhD.
www.drhurd.com/news_533.html
The U.N. is worse than irrelevant. It provides moral aid and comfort to violent terrorist states such as Iran, North Korea and Iraq as well as potential enemies such as China and Russia. The U.N. represents one gigantic and continuous excuse for dictators to buy time and make fools of the free world. Only the unjust can benefit from such a body, and only the just can suffer by enduring its pretense at governance. That's exactly what we have witnessed for the last nine months or so.
It was a terrible mistake for the Bush Administration to enlist the support of the U.N. in the first place. It was not a tactical or strategic error, but a fundamental one in that it granted the U.N. status it does not legally or morally deserve. The Bush Administration is getting what it deserves when rebuked by France, Germany, China, Turkey and Russia -- though not for any of the reasons the opponents of the Bush Administration claim. It’s not that the Bush Administration was too arrogant; it wasn’t self-assertive enough. In the beginning, President Bush should have said: "We're going after Iraq. Those who want to join us are welcome. Those who don't -- get the hell out of our way."
If the U.N. votes against the U.S. going to war and the U.S. goes to war anyway -- and if our military is left free (unlike during the Vietnam War) to crush the regime into the dust -- then the U.N. will be massively and perhaps permanently discredited. The U.N. actually had to be discredited sooner or later. It enjoys no constitutional authority over the U.S., as the Bush Administration will eloquently demonstrate if it goes to war against the U.N.'s wishes. Such a defeat will force supporters of the U.N. to finally reveal their actual motive: world government. In practice this means: the law of socialist, nationalist and dictatorial (even terrorist) states over the law of the American Constitution. Or, put another way: a world government in which we are ruled equally by our Congress, our President, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, the mullahs of Iran and the volatile Communists of North Korea.
Who wants to defend giving the U.N. legal control over the free world? I’d like to see Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, or Ted Kennedy take on that issue. It will be good to have the real debate out in the open, once and for all. For this reason I look forward to a strong "no" vote from the U.N.
by Michael J. Hurd, PhD.
www.drhurd.com/news_533.html
