Monday, September 24, 2007

Monday 9-24

Can we get rid of the United Nations? Or at least pass it off on another country so we don't have to put up with it here. Hordes of armed guards had to travel around with the "President" of Iran when he arrived in New York Sunday. Now, he gets to stand at podiums around the city and insult the U.S.--all at taxpayers expense. Plus, he wants to pay a visit to Ground Zero to "pay his respects". If he is allowed to go, can someone ask him if he is pleased with the results of the attack carried out by the same religious fanatics that look to him as a hero?

The majority of countries in the UN don't pay their dues--meaning the U.S. picks up the tab. In addition, the delegates sent to New York enjoy diplomatic immunity--meaning they can go about breaking minor laws without impunity--all the while bashing the U.S. for protecting its interest around the world. When was the last time you invited guests over to your house just so they can tell you what a dump it is? Why can't some other country take this flaming bag of dog doo off of our front porch?

It's not like the U.N. actually works. Can you name one war the United Nations has prevented? Instead, the U.N. specializes in getting bogged down in wars--limiting member nations to "peace keeping missions" or "police actions". And don't forget the main body of those fighting forces come from the U.S. Has the Security Council made the world any safer? How can it with Russia and China on board?

The time has come to trade the U.N. to another country. the French always portray themselves as peacemakers--let them take it. And why can't the always-neutral Swiss take a few decades hosting the U.N.? I think America has spent more than enough time being the world's policeman.

1 comment:

  1. "The majority of countries in the UN don't pay their dues--meaning the U.S. picks up the tab."

    Is that a joke? The US owes more than any other nation in UN dues. Do you really think that the US subsidizes all shortfalls just because the UN HQ sits on US soil?? In reality, the poorer countries pay for the US.

    And if you think that Russia and China are the only ones vetoing positive UNSC action, perhaps you should research how the Clinton-era US voted against action to prevent the Rwandan genocides (no oil in Rwanda?), and even vetoed a resolution saying that "all nations should adhere to international law". Unlikely as that may sound, the US vetoed it for fear of their troops being held to account in an international court they couldn't control.

    The UN is certainly weak, but if you removed the power of veto from the UNSC permanent members, you'd find it a lot more powerful.