U.N. Credibility: The Ultimate Oxymoron

Post-9/11 Era Forum

U.N. Credibility: The Ultimate Oxymoron


I keep hearing pundits and talking heads and ''experts'' on the news, saying how the U.S. must involve the United Nations in post-conflict Iraq.

Their reason? We need the U.N.'s credibility.

Excuse me? WHAT credibility?

The credibility that dragged the people of Iraq through 12 years of torture, rape, and murder, while U.N. members flapped their collective yap and did nothing?

The credibility that had the chance to take down Saddam in 1991, but didn't because the Frogs said not to, thereby placing tens of thousands of Iraqis in the gunsights of the Ba'ath party after Bush 41 told them to rise up?

The credibility that sent the IAEA into a nuclear facility without bleedin' Geiger counters?

The credibility that sent Blix into Iraq for the largest game of 'blind man's bluff' in the history of the planet?

And lest you think that the U.N. has only recently ''flubbed,'' cast your minds back to a place called Korea. The U.N. had the resources of the U.S. and a large number of other countries to defend South Korea. The war raged on, while Chinese and North Korean ''diplomats'' negotiated with the U.N. These old-style Saddams played the U.N, like a Stradivarius. These bozos tied up the U.N. over the shape of the negotiating table, for pity's sake. And finally, when the shooting ceased, the U.N. couldn't even bring itself to the point of victory. They agreed to a cease-fire.

The war never ended, folks.

The U.S. and Coalition forces could have easily won that war. Yes, it's true. And that's taking nothing away from the brave efforts of the forces who fought in Korea. They weren't allowed to win. The politicians and the globalists didn't want a victory. They wanted a stalemate. Win and Lose, Good and Evil, Black and White, these are all concepts they were trying to move away from.

Imagine, if you will, that the U.N. had existed prior to the beginning of World War II. A frightening concept, I'll grant you, but try. Assuming that the U.N. would even ALLOW the U.S., Britain, Poland, and others to defend themselves against Japanese and German aggression, do you think we'd have won the war? Do you think the U.N. would have permitted such blatant aggressive SELF DEFENSE by those nations who were attacked? And what about our friends, the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys? They would've been telling the world just how wonderful things were under Nazi occupation. The Vichy Government would have been the ones at the Security Council, blocking Roosevelt and Churchill. And back then, they would have succeeded.

And we'd all be speaking German now. Except the Jews, of course. There wouldn't be any of them left. There also wouldn't be any blacks or Arabs or Asians either, except in small pockets of controlled slave labor camps.

But there would be a U.N. It would contain one nation. And it would have one leader. Or should I say Fuhrer?

The U.N. has failed time after time, conflict after conflict. Can anybody name a REAL success they've had? I mean in conflict resolution, not feeding the hungry. And they normally can't get THAT right either, quite frankly. Private aid organizations normally do a FAR better job of getting assistance to those who truly need it. The U.N., however, does a pretty good job of getting assistance to the tyrants and despots.

Nowadays, the U.N. Security Council is looking at holding on to the sanctions created under the bad-old-days of Saddam Hussein. Why? Could it be that the U.N. actually made MONEY off of that deal? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the U.N. actually taking a cut of the sales of that oil? I believe it was 2%. And over the many years, 2% of all that oil can add up to a rather tidy little nest egg. Saddam sure found that out. So did the Frogs, the Krauts, the Sprouts, the Rooskies and our other so-called ''allies,'' now proud members of the Axis of Weasels. And the U.N. knew that little of that ''oil for food'' money was actually going to food or medicine or other assistance to the Iraqi people. They knew it was going to weapons, and palaces. They knew it was going to government
agencies of member nations. But they did nothing. Why? Because they were making money on the deal. And sadly, issues of right and wrong fly right out of the window when folks like that are managing a cash flow that large.

And this is what the experts call ''credibility''?

The United Nations HAS no credibility. Neither does the Axis of Weasels or CNN, for that matter. The United Nations didn't want to ''soil their hands'' in the war. They have no business being involved in the peace.

The U.S. and the coalition President Bush built are FAR more credible than the U.N. Why? Because they got the job done. The job the U.N. refused to handle. The problem the U.N. itself helped to cause. The problem the U.N. was actually making a profit from.

It's time for America to realize that the U.N. is a failure. Heaven knows, we've got more than a half-century's worth of proof of that contention. America funds almost a quarter of the U.N. America hosts the U.N. America has taken the lion's share of responsibility in military actions on behalf of the U.N.

And the U.N. has spat in our face for it.

Enough.

It's time for the U.S. to kick the U.N. out, preferably with a steel-toed boot. It's time for the U.S. to withdraw from all U.N. activity, funding and treaties. And it's time for the U.S. to seriously re-think our relationships with those countries we have traditionally referred to as ''allies.'' Some of them are anything BUT allies of the U.S. We have to have the guts to say this, and then do something about it.

Just one more thing. Congressman Ron Paul of Texas has a bill before the House of Representatives now about removing the United States from the United Nations. The bill is HR 1146 and is titled 'The American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003.'' To read about it, go to: (http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/bills/?bill=1630511).

I love this part of the summary:

The U.S president, by signing HR 1146, will heed the counsel of our first president, George Washington, when he advised his countrymen to "steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world" lest the nations security and liberties be compromised by endless, and overriding international commitments.

200+ years and it still rings true today.

How true, America has only a few true allies in this world that it can count on for support. America should let all of these two-faced nations deal with their own problems and concentrate on building a greater nation than it is now on its own shores. For too long America has let the world dictate its actions, well you know what? Screw the world.

If people don't like the fact that Americans make up 5% of the population and consume 25% of the energy, tough sh&t! We're not going to have some namby-pamby Europeans or Islamofascists or Communists tell us what we can or cannot do.

C'mon - would someone please try to defend these actions by the UN? I need a good laugh.

Russia’s piece of the oil pie: With the apparent demise of Saddam Hussein’s control of Baghdad, the international community begins to focus on the post-war reconstruction of Iraq. Russia fears that its vocal anti-war stance has marginalized its role in the reconstruction effort. Dmitri Trenin, deputy director for the Moscow Carnegie Center, says, “Russia is not a terribly rich country, and it has been hoping to benefit materially from Iraq, not act as a donor.” He adds, “Having accused the United States of waging a war for oil, Russia is now trying to get a piece of the oil pie. It’s ironic, but also pathetic.” Trenin says, “Russians today are confused. Some are realizing that they made a bad choice when they went public with their opposition, threatening vetoes, and joining the French. Now the [Russian] foreign ministry believes that somehow the mythology of the U.N. role could be restored, but it has been punctured and is unlikely to come back.”

Straight of the UN home page and Iraq got away with kissing the UN's BOOTY. I've ran across a few other things about IRAQ kissing da booty on the UN webpage too.
Wish I had the links - this was a few months ago back in JAN.

Bet there were a couple "countries" against the US about Iraq because they were getting free oil for standing againt the war. HMMM - no one ever thinks about things like that.

The United States has over the last century made eighteen attempts to impose lasting democratic rule in coutries and only five have been successful.