| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| "Let Leave the U.N. and Move to Kookville!" |
| 2004-12-20 |
| There was a time when, if you wrote or spoke out against the United Nations, you would be dismissed as some right-wing kook, a nutcase who saw conspiracies or was some kind of isolationist who didn't understand the need for an international forum where the problems of the world could be resolved without resort to warfare. Well, friend, welcome to Kookville! Turns out that the United Nations is not simply incapable of stopping wars and genocides, it is so utterly corrupt that it needs to be eliminated entirely in the hope that the many other existing international organizations, treaties, unilateral and bilateral relations can be allowed to do what the United Nations itself will not and cannot do. Hopefully, 2005 will be the year that historians mark as the one in which this bloated international criminal conspiracy imploded from its own dead weight. This is not a new thought for me, but it resurfaced as I read an October 9 news article about "a tough new anti-terrorism resolution aimed at stemming attacks on civilians by denying terrorists safe havens, weapons, financial resources, and freedom of movement." Introduced by the Russian Federation, it was unanimously passed by the UN Security Council. It was described as strengthening the "essential coordinating role of the United Nations in the international campaign against the terrorist threat." |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #16 Mikey reveals his true identity. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-12-20 5:15:30 PM |
| #15 If the UN had been around in my day the War could have been put off until 1942 during which time we would have perfected the Hood follow on. |
| Posted by: N Chamberlain 2004-12-20 5:07:20 PM |
| #14 The UN gives the definitive answer to the question of the 1960's, What if you had a war and no one shows up? Answer? Mass rape, starvation, and genocide. |
| Posted by: anon 2004-12-20 4:24:04 PM |
| #13 Mikey, What Mass Graves? Sylvester. |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-12-20 1:57:38 PM |
| #12 Mikey is one of those eternal optimists. The U.N., Kofi, us -- it doesn't matter, we're all good, this is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. We just all need what he's smoking. |
| Posted by: Tom 2004-12-20 1:40:30 PM |
| #11 If we're such kooksville buchannanites, why do you waste your precious time and wisdom on us Mikey? |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-12-20 1:18:17 PM |
| #10 It wasn't Pat Buchanan who talked people out of supporting the UN. It was the UN. The idea still hasn't reached critical mass, but there are a lot more people pointing out that Kofi has no clothes. |
| Posted by: Fred 2004-12-20 1:04:38 PM |
| #9 Mikey, you live in the world of the past. In the last century, your ideas were hip and cool. Now you are just a fossil, dinosaur, old fool. You'd be defending slavery, if you had been born in a prior century. Of..course, what am I saying, you do that now. No pity for the 9 year old prostitutes from Mikey. No complaints for the sex for food scandals or of bloody handed thugs will ever escape your lips. You really are slime, Mike. But keep it up. It's good for the rest of us to realize that sleeze like you is out there, ever ready to apologize for the misbehavior of monsters. |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-12-20 10:00:50 AM |
| #8 I think the best way of killing the UN is by dilution. In other words, set up whole groups of multinational organizations, all within eye-shot of the UN. Turn the whole area into a great big marketplace. For serious diplomacy and business only. Not for the 5th-grade educated nepotism monkeyhouse of the UN, but for the US to work with serious and intelligent individuals from every other country. Think something like a hundred G-8 organizations. And if countries are hostile, admit proxies, like governments-in-exile, minority party and business leaders from those countries. That way, alternatives could be established that would work so well that the UN could easily be ignored, even by small countries. Another advantage is that NGOs, such as multinational corporations, could be invited as delegates, as if they were a country. The best way to kill the UN, and yet keep America as the new Rome, to which all roads lead, is to let it whither away. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2004-12-20 9:47:35 AM |
| #7 Mike-it's one thing to be supportive of what the UN was intended to be; it's quite another to be supportive of what it has become. While Buchanan may have been considered a "kook" for withdrawing his support for the UN during the time it enjoyed widespread support from Americans, his position is no longer so kooky for a growing number of Americans-not because the ideals of the UN are distasteful, but because the UN no longer acts to fulfill them. (Every month 6000-10000 Darfurians are dying--and the count is going up every month that the UN does nothing). The UN is not fulfilling its Charter and that is a deadly disgrace. |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2004-12-20 9:40:29 AM |
| #6 From where I'm sitting, you have to be a kook to believe in the UN. A collection of thugs, crooks, and wanna-be Hitlers. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-12-20 9:20:34 AM |
| #5 do not disparage Mikey's beloved UN.....oh, OK, go ahead, it deserves it |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-12-20 9:09:08 AM |
| #4 The irony of it all is that the U.N. presumes some sort of authority and yet has none over the likes of Saddam or the likes of the U.S. Over fifty years later, it still operates refugee camps in Palestine and has no resolution on the Korean peninsula. |
| Posted by: Tom 2004-12-20 8:43:28 AM |
| #3 Like the U.N. itself, it's an illusion, Mikey. Watch the hands, not the lips. Bush has to pay lip service to the U.N. right up to the day in which our U.N. ambassador goes on permanent veto mode or presents the overhaul plan or tells the U.N. that we're not paying that much anymore or all three. |
| Posted by: Tom 2004-12-20 8:30:47 AM |
| #2 There was a time when, if you wrote or spoke out against the United Nations, you would be dismissed as some right-wing kook, a nutcase who saw conspiracies or was some kind of isolationist who didn’t understand the need for an international forum where the problems of the world could be resolved without resort to warfare. This is still true. The USA had a Presidential election about six weeks ago. During the election campaign, which lasted well more than a year, neither major candidate advocated a change in the USA's participation in the UN. I think the issue was not discussed at all by Bush or Kerry or in the platforms of the Republican or Democratic parties. The last candidate who advocated that the USA withdraw support from the UN was Patrick Buchanan. He received about one-third of one percent of the votes in that election. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-12-20 8:21:45 AM |
| #1 Fairly good recitation, heh. As implied, "If this be kooky, then call me a kook, too." We can certainly do better, should it ever make sense to try another organization such as this. We have learned the hard way, twice, and should have a fair idea of how to craft the third generation so that it is, more or less, a creation that does not merely pontificate and reproduce for the sake of employing the, otherwise, unemployable. It should be an entity that keeps its word, when it is given by a vote - and Acts or Shuts The Hell Up. Call it LFOGTHOOTW*. Then again, what's wrong with bilateral agreements? * Lead, Follow, Or Get The Hell Out Of The Way. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-12-20 1:02:47 AM |