SwiftVets.com

[God and Country]

IS THE UN WORTH SAVING? by William Rusher

For a good many years, it has been a fair question whether or not the United Nations is more trouble than it's worth. For the first 15 years of its existence, from 1945 to 1960, it served its purpose as a handy forum for the world's variegated nations, and even occasionally served a useful purpose – as in 1950, when it lent its name to the American-led war to defend South Korea from the North Korean invasion. (Though even that was possible only because the Soviet Union, which could have vetoed the move, had temporarily walked out of the Security Council in a huff over something or other.)

But then, about 1960, a flood of new ex-colonial nations entered the world body, and quickly organized themselves as the Third World, ostensibly neutral in the epochal struggle between the communist powers and the Free World. By virtue of sheer numbers, this new entity seized control of the General Assembly – and with it control of the United Nations' central bureaucracy – and began selling itself to the higher of the two global bidders: Washington and Moscow. Slowly, however, under the leadership of India, the Third World began siding regularly with Moscow, and the United Nations followed suit.

This thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs lasted until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. That forced the Untied Nations, which, like any bureaucracy, is interested first and foremost in self-preservation, to seek a new sponsor. In the past decade – as France and Germany have increasingly seen themselves as the leaders of Europe in an effort to create a counterbalance to the American superpower – the United Nations has progressively yielded to their guidance. Today, it is little more than a marginally useful tool in their schemes to rein in the United States.

That is one reason why, in 2002 and 2003, the United Nations did its unsuccessful best to block the American invasion of Iraq, despite Saddam Hussein's defiance of 12 successive U.N. demands that it abandon its development of chemical, biological and (if possible) nuclear weapons of mass destruction. And that is also why U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is today contending that any American military effort is "illegal" if Washington doesn't first receive the United Nations' permission.

All this would be more than enough reason for the United States to withdraw formally from all participation in the United Nations' brazen efforts to run the world. But recently it has become clear that the Secretariat of the United Nations, or at least many highly placed officials in it, are quite simply corrupt. The United Nations' appalling mismanagement of the high-minded "Oil for Food" program, under which Hussein was allowed to sell Iraqi oil ostensibly in return for desperately needed food and medical aid for his people, may well turn out to be the biggest instance of thievery in the entire world history of theft.

As the program actually worked, the United Nations allowed Hussein to sell oil to chosen beneficiaries at artificially low prices – oil which they could then resell at the market price, pocketing the difference. The beneficiaries apparently included U.N. officials and (not surprisingly) well-placed French, German and Russian players. Small wonder that their governments, and the United Nations itself, bitterly opposed George W. Bush's intention to topple Hussein!

The scope of the corruption is now under investigation by the panel appointed Annan and led by Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, who is personally above suspicion. But Volcker seems to be having difficulty getting the cooperation he needed from Annan's office, and he may be forced to report that he is not being allowed to do the job that needs to be done.

A better avenue of investigation, therefore, may be the congressional committee headed by Minnesota's Republican senator, Norm Coleman. This committee, too, has reported that it is running into foot-dragging at the United Nations. But it will press on, and there is reason to hope that it will come up with some answers, however shocking they may be.

All of which makes even more urgent a serious re-evaluation of the ability of the United Nations. The time may be coming when Uncle Sam will have to say "Enough!"

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41616

HAPPY THANKSGIVING
_________________
Conservative and proud

[PhantomSgt]

Answer to the question: NO
_________________
Retired AF E-8

Independent that leans right of center.

[Rurik]

Perhaps in a bottle of formaldehyde - as a warniing against future bad ideas.
_________________
Hating John Kerry continuously since 1971.

Essayons!
Fight Build and Destroy

[tony54]

Absolutely not!

The UN may have started out as a good organization, but in the last 30 years or so they became extremely left wing.
As if the oil for food scandal wasn't enough Kofi himself tried to help throw our presidential election by calling the war in Iraq, Bush’s illegal war.
That was specifically meant to help Kerry win and Kerry would not have pursued the oil for food scandal.
When he called the war an illegal war, he basically said Bush is a war criminal!
Its time to get us out of the UN, and Annan and the rest of those anti-American leeches out of our country.
We must do something about the UN now that we have a good honest President and the majority of both houses.
The UN is a cash cow and we have WJC and Hillary waiting to cash in and corrupt it even more!
There is no guarantee we will win in '08 or that we will have a majority in the House or Senate.
ITS NOW OR NEVER!

[Fort Campbell]

NO!

[zinfella]

Not in my opinion. The UN preys on the weak and supports the corrupt.
_________________
No whiners!

[GenrXr]

Hmm, I think we should create a new world organization. To be a member you have to agree with the U.S. on all policies. Screw the rest of the planet. Oh while we are doing that Bush needs to invite Putin to Crawford for some barbque and Laura can get out a map of the middle east, to which Putin and Bush can then divide up all the countries over there save Israel 50/50. Oh and tell the rest of the world to piss off over that also.
_________________
"An activist is the person who cleans up the water, not the one claiming its dirty."
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Founder of Conservative Philosophy

[tony54]

I don't believe we need any world organization to help make decisions for us.
The good old USA is the organization that sets the standard for the FREE!
If any other country wants to join us they are welcome, all they have to do is be our ally in world matters, terrorism, poverty, and so on.
They can join us as allies, and be part of the solution, as Britain, Italy and Poland have done.
Or they can be like France, Germany, and Russia and remain part of the problem.

THE UN HAS GOT TO GO!

[GM Strong]

The UN is corrupt, lacks any moral authority, and has no mission. It should move to a 3rd world country where corruption is OK and the thugs and dictators would be comfortable. Lagos comes to mind, possibly Mogadishu or Yemen. It has become the left's last hope for world Gummint and should be relegated to the scrap heap just as the USSR. Most of the reasons for it's founding have vanished and a different approach needed. Giving up our soverienty is not an option, despite what Jimmuh and sKerry think. Slick Willy for Sec. General, that would finish it off.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69

[AD]

NO

The USA should get out of the UN.
The UN must be moved out of the USA land.

Please see this petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/lonestar/petition.html
_________________
http://geocities.com/villinois

[C-130 Son]

This is a no brainer. The UN is worthless.

I don't think we need an international organization to bring nations together or to dictate to sovereign nations how we ought to live. We can choose our own allies and work together while still maintaining our sovereignty.

[GIaunt]

The UN as it currently functions is a disaster. But, just withdrawing from it, or helping it to collapse would leave a void.

The UN needs a 'new birth' --
the current staff must all be replaced - Annan must GO!!!!

The world needs a platform for discussion, but we are not ready for a world court, nor a world government.... That is the self-delusion that the UN has.... and that must be corrected....

The charter should be reviewed and the appropriate changes made....

[BuffaloJack]

The UN is no better than the defunct League of Nations.
It isn't worth saving and certainly isn't worth another cent from the US taxpayers.
Demolish the building. Reclaim the property (prime property, I might add). And make all the diplomats pay their parking and traffic tickets before they leave our soil. Any still remaining after 30 days should be sent to Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
_________________
Swift Boats - Qui Nhon (12/69-4/70), Cat Lo (4/70-5/70), Vung Tau (5/70-12/71)

[MSeeger]

Take the UN out of the US and send it to mighty Europe. They deserve each other.

Maria
_________________
Be not deceived, God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Gal. 6:7

[Inatizzy]

I say let's keep the UN...<now wait a minute before you all start yelling>but put KEN STARR in charge. He's brilliant, a lawyer, ultra conservative and a bulldog when it comes to getting things done.

BWAHAHAHAHA! That would make the rest of the countries check their hole cards wouldn't it??

...oh yeah....and it wouldn't be called the United Nations anymore.....it would be called the "Starr Chamber". heh heh