Let the U.N. die.

[YogsVR4]

As I keep saying. The sooner the better.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=31061

For more than a half-century, the United States has invested untold billions of hard-earned dollars in the United Nations. Once, there was a hope that the sprawling bureaucracy could be a forum where nations hammer out solutions to the world's problems, instead of resorting to war. That hope became a fantasy many years ago. Between bureaucratic inertia, and political posturing, the U.N. has become a bottomless pit, where good money chases bad. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.N.'s highest priority appears to be to contain, constrain, and ultimately, to control the United States.

Germany, aided by France and Russia, has been at the forefront of this effort for more than a decade. Their current display of solidarity on Iraq, and NATO, is far more public than normal, which suggests that they believe they now have the power to force the United States to conform to their demands.

Willy Brandt, then-Chancellor of Germany, called an emergency meeting of the world's socialist leaders in 1991, when George Bush Sr. stood up to Saddam Hussein. Out of this meeting came the Commission on Global Governance, which produced a blueprint for creating world government. That blueprint has now been substantially implemented, and the one-worlders believe they have the power to force the U.S. to acquiesce to their will.

Unlike, the Clinton administration, which supported the global governance agenda, the Bush administration has tried valiantly to keep the U.S. out of the clutches of the one-worlders, while still working within the framework of the United Nations. The selection of Lybia to head the Human Rights Commission; the selection of Iraq to head the Disarmament talks; and, now, France and Germany's determination to continue the U.N.'s 12-year "rush" to war, and their refusal to allow NATO to plan for Turkey's defense should convince even Congressional Democrats that the U.N. is a lost cause.

America's role and responsibility to the world is neither to fund, nor to conform to the wishes of the United Nations. The first responsibility of the American government is to protect U.S. citizens and to defend the U.S. Constitution. Acquiescence to the U.N.'s global governance plan would subject U.S. citizens to policies imposed by unelected bureaucrats in foreign countries, enforced by judges chosen by the very people who seek to control the United States.

It's time to let the U.N. die.

Ironically, the U.N. could not have possibly reached this stage of global governance without the financial and political support of the United States. If the United States were to stop funding this monster, it would die of starvation. To be sure, the world's socialists would close ranks and try to consolidate their global power. They could, and likely would, impose sanctions on the U.S., forcing a direct confrontation between capitalism and socialism. No contest.

Withdrawal from the U.N. is not withdrawal from the world, nor should it be. President Bush's "coalition of the willing" consists of at least 18 nations that have made a public commitment to participate against Iraq, with or without the U.N. Still, Sen. Carl Levin, among others, contend that action against Iraq without U.N. approval is "unilateral" action. This idea that the U.N. must legitimize U.S. foreign policy is to deny the concept of national sovereignty.

There are many people in America who have been taught that global governance, administered by the U.N., is the next plateau in the evolution of governance, and that failure to acquiesce to the inevitable is irresponsible. This idea is the result of a half-century of careful indoctrination by the National Education Association, UNESCO, the U.N. Association, the World Federalist Society, and a host of other one-world advocates. To those who subscribe to this point of view, the U.S. Constitution is obsolete; national sovereignty is outdated, and individual freedom must be suppressed for the greater collective good of society.

The decisions made by the United States government in the next days or weeks could well determine the future of the United States for generations. If the United States bows to the will of the U.N., America – the land of the free and the home of the brave – will be history. On the other hand, if the U.S. exercises its national sovereignty and moral authority to protect its citizens, and the U.S. Constitution – despite the objections of France, Germany, and Russia – we could see the beginning of a new era of freedom in the United States, and throughout the world.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.

[BLU CIVIC]

if the un goes away...what happens then what happened b4 the un

[YogsVR4]

Originally posted by BLU CIVIC
if the un goes away...what happens then what happened b4 the un

Before the UN was the League of Nations. Another failure. There are some of the things in the UN are worthwhile. There are humanitarian causes that should still be supported, but the UN as a forum to get things done is a waste.

[taranaki]

The alternative view.

The U.N. was formed during the 2nd world war as a military alliance to defeat the forces of Hitler.After the war,it's purpose changed into that of the world's mediator.Sadly,as it grew larger,it became slower and more cumbersome,and only the largest and most persistent of delegations managed to get any progress with their ideals.with the collapse of the soviet bloc, the U.N became skewed in favour of the U.S.,and the U.S.has shamelessly applied pressure on the U.N. ever since to back the territorial incursions that are becoming a routine part of U.S. foreign affairs.Instead of the abiding by the debated resolutions of the U.N. various U.S. governments have seen fit to try and railroad world opinion into legitimising the empirical aspirations of the U.S.


In short,the U.N.is struggling to do it's job because the U.S. won't let it.It's hard to have a reasoned debate when one party insists on braying at the top of its voice and sulks when it doesn't get its own way.

If the U.S. can't handle being subject to the highest democratic process in the world,it should quit the U.N. altogether.Alternatively,it could listen to what the rest of the world is saying instead of trying to bully its way to respectability.

[jon@af]

Originally posted by taranaki


.....If the U.S. can't handle being subject to the highest democratic process in the world,it should quit the U.N. altogether.Alternatively,it could listen to what the rest of the world is saying instead of trying to bully its way to respectability.

I very much agree. War is never needed, but for some reason, the US feels it is. I think the UN has done a decent job up to now of keeping the US from declaring war on Iraq, I mean for crying out loud, Bush is like a 10 year old with the button to launch a little rocket in the air, and his daddy is making him wait(I think that made sense). I think that it would make many people happy if the US made a whole-hearted attempt at solving this problem peacefully, and if they dont want to, as naki said, remove yourself from the UN, you obviously have no business there.

[inferno]

Well one thing that both of you are seeming to forget is that if the U.S. were to leave the U.N., it would probably be the death blow to the organization. We all pretty much can agree that the U.S. is the most powerful member of the U.N. In terms of the U.S. trying to "bully its way to respectability", I think the U.S. has enough credibility that it doesn't need to impose its will anymore. I would like to see this situation resolved without war as well, but there still is no guarantee that Saddam would comply with the proposed plan that the U.N. is currently offering. Saddam has not complied in the past with the U.N. mandates and there is no guarantee that he will in the future. I am curious as to what you think should be done if he fails to follow through once again and how the U.N. should address that if/when it happens.

[taranaki]

Originally posted by inferno
Well one thing that both of you are seeming to forget is that if the U.S. were to leave the U.N., it would probably be the death blow to the organization. We all pretty much can agree that the U.S. is the most powerful member of the U.N.

Sorry but we can't agree that at all.Being the loudest does not mean being the most powerful.It's time that the U.S. stopped trying to dictate policy to the U.N. I personally think the UN would flourish,and gain more international credibility without the self-serving antics of the U.S.

[YogsVR4]

Mr. T - just to be picky...

It looks like it was called "Declaration by United Nations" by FDR in 1942 (26 nations) and then was chartered as the "United Nations" in 1945. "The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945" from http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm

[YogsVR4]

Originally posted by taranaki
Sorry but we can't agree that at all.Being the loudest does not mean being the most powerful.It's time that the U.S. stopped trying to dictate policy to the U.N. I personally think the UN would flourish,and gain more international credibility without the self-serving antics of the U.S.

I'm all for letting it do just that.

[Monkey-Magic-S15-R]

let the UN die are you crazy? they need some place to meet

they invest untold millions

what about the pointless billions wasted on israel has anything good come from that?


The UN is only in trouble because not everyone is 100% on war and if you haven't noticed it kinda works out 50% in every country doesn't want a war. latest polls in England saw 52% against war.

[inferno]

Originally posted by taranaki


Sorry but we can't agree that at all.Being the loudest does not mean being the most powerful.It's time that the U.S. stopped trying to dictate policy to the U.N. I personally think the UN would flourish,and gain more international credibility without the self-serving antics of the U.S.

If the United States wasn't the premier power with-in the U.N., then why is this discussion even going on? If it were that simple, the U.S. could be shut out of talks and the resolution can be made as was the case with the defense preparation for Turkey and the French being locked out. If the U.N. can make a resolution without the U.S., then why don't they do it? Also, you don't think a founding member the size and strength(economically and militarily) of the United States leaving won't cause other nations to start to doubt the U.N. and possibly cause more countries to leave as well?

[Darth Cypher]

I think the UN is on it's way out the door like it's predecessor. Not saying it is wrong to be against the war. But sometimes you have to resort to violent means. However, that is beside the point.

The UN is pretty much spineless and only a debating committee. Wether the UN inspectors were kicked out because of the alleged "spying" or not, still they let one little country that got it's ass kicked by the whole world walk all over them in that move. Thus it gave Iraq a victory.

And Iraq has gone relatively unchecked for years until the current administration basically said "bullshit" and got inspectors in there at least and are keeping the pressure on Iraq. Notice Blix's most recent report on how Iraq is complying in some areas though still not in others. It's good that the "coalition of the willing" is keeping the pressure on.

If the US dropped out or got kicked out then the UN would lose it's spine, IMO.

[GTStang]

A UN without the US? LMAO Like making laws with no police or courts to enforce it and expecting people to follow them. I bet it works great!

[GTi-VR6_A3]

too bad theory almost never makes reality. the UN should and could be a beautiful thing. too bad it does stupid things like appoint turkey head of education programs when their leader is seriously against education the masses.

-GTi-VR6_A3

[taranaki]

Originally posted by GTStang
A UN without the US? LMAO Like making laws with no police or courts to enforce it and expecting people to follow them. I bet it works great!

I find it sad and slightly offensive that there are bigots out there that truly believe that America rules the world.Perhaps if you closed your mouths and opened your ears for a change you might learn something of what the rest of the world thinks of your foreign policy.It's quite clear that the U.S. has lost massive amounts of overseas support over the last twenty years,when NATO comes to the brink of collapse because of the greedy and arrogant attitude of the White House.America is increasing descending into the deluded paranoia that was the downfall of Hitler.Twenty years ago the western world stood squarely behind the U.S.,now only theBritish and Australian gowernments stand there,and there is considerable doubt as to whether they have the democratic mandate of their citizens to assist shoud Bush decide to violate international law and attack Iraq without the approval of the U.N.