Is the World Better Off by Having the United Nations?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Countryside : One Thread
My opinion is NO! I have yet to see the UN do anything which has had a lasting impact, and it is extremely expensive to operate.
-- Ken S. in WC TN (email@example.com), September 13, 2000
My opinion- Yes in the short course and no in the long run. As far as stopping the slaughter of people, in the short run, it seems half way effective. I think we all know from Rhawanda and other incidents that even the UN can be overcome.(Sure Joel knows this and is pleased by this. No bad feelings from me Joel.) No lasting impact, as Ken said. I also think that we have no right to impose our values and beliefs on other people. That being a country or individual. So there are other cultures that do things we don't approve of or like. So what. I am sure that alot of people would say the way we live and raise our children is wrong. (Look at our death penalty.) As far as civil wars go, they are not without reason, whatever that reason may be.
-- Terri Perry (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 13, 2000.
Ken, I agree with you in that it may not achieve effects that it was concieved to do, but it does have a purpose, if only to "keep one hand out where everyone can see it". When it comes down to it, its always other groupings that ultimately choreagraph events (NATO, Wausau Pact, OPEC , etc). So, even while as you pointed out, it is unneccesary, it is a convienent forum for our leaders.
-- Jay Blair (email@example.com), September 13, 2000.
I just have to add my 2 cents on this one. As the u.n. stands now it probably is not coming close to doing what the founders intended it for, but I feel that dismantling it would be worse.At the end of ww2, there was no forum to be found where nations could discuss their problems with each other in order to avoid more world wars.As with any such idealistic enterprise, over the years this organization has made many mistakes and the bureaucrats have weighed it down with boloney so it can't work right; then they have extended what they are doing to include the things previously mentioned in forcing our ways on others. I still feel that the original intention of preventing world war 3 is a good one and could be the main reason most of us would like to keep the U.N. going-what are the alternatives?
-- maureenB (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 14, 2000.
I believe that I like the place for nations to table their concerns but we shouldn't house it. It belongs in the Haque. Holland is much more suited to be the home of it. We are not the world police and we would be better off without that walking disaster on our shores. The U.N. should only use words --no armies. The United States should realize it's role as "Seperate yet equal" in world affairs. We are not God and no army can turn the tides of fate !
-- Joel Rosen (Joel681@webtv.net), September 14, 2000.
I'll be darned, Joel...
I second your selection of the Hague for the U.N. site. Or, perhaps Brussels, Belgium where NATO is headquartered. It would serve as a physical reminder that the U.S. is not the be-all-to-end-all.
My take on the U.N. is that talk is cheap, war is not. As long as nations can sit down and talk things out, it worth the price of their rather creaky bureaucracy. There are many good U.N. programs involving medical aid, disaster relief and cultural exchange programs that get no press at all. It's only when the U.N. screws up, that you hear about it.
-- Craig Miller (CMiller@ssd.com), September 14, 2000.
Well, let's see. The UN didn't prevent the Korean War. It didn't prevent the war in Vietnam. It didn't prevent the war between Iran & Iraq (kinda wish they would start that one again). Hasn't stopped regional wars, such as in Yugoslavia or India/Pakistan.
I agree there are some worthwhile 'attempts' at humanitarian projects, but I still see no long term impact. Plus, it is your tax dollars at work since the U.S. pays the bulk of the UN budget.
I am certainly no advocating Isolationish, but I think the U.S. is bearing more than its fair share.
Yes, move the U.S. to Geneva.
-- Ken S. in WC TN (email@example.com), September 14, 2000.
On the subject of housing it. Why isn't it hosted by member nations? The Olympics are hosted all over the world, why not that.
-- Jay Blair (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 14, 2000.
I don't think the world is better off for having the UN. I DO think that having a non-combataive place for all of the leaders of the countries of the world to discuss things is a very good idea.Unfortunately, it is just like all other bureaucratic things, it continually has expanded it's scope and overstepped it's original bounds, and works continually to expand it's control further.
I like Jay's idea. Rotating crops is a good idea.
-- Doreen (email@example.com), September 14, 2000.
As the u.n. stands now it probably will do exactly as its founders actually intended. Riduculous openly stated rhetoric aside, its purpose was to spread socialism and destroy the power of nation states that were militarily superior while lining the accounts of the bankers that backed it. Of course, it would take some understanding of history to be aware of that and public schools make sure that its inmates dont learn anything.
Here are some things to think about in no particular order for those of you who are interested in finding out what is going on...
The U.N. World Intellectual Property Organization has just found an American guilty of cybersqatting and confiscated 2 domain names and awarded them without compensation to a media organization also here in these united States. Where do they get this authority and if they can arbitrarily steal one persons intellectual property they can certainly take yours. This is extremely dangerous to the first amendment.
Charles Bloomer in an article for Enter Stage Right asks:
1. To whom is this force accountable?
A7 The Security Council? With each of the 5 permanent members holding veto power, decisions regarding deployment and commitment could be problematic. Two of those 5 members (Russia and China) could be considered hostile to United States interests. China is also a communist dictatorship. Do we want to contribute military resources to this group?
B7 The UN Secretary General? The Secretary General is a non-elected, appointed official. He is essentially accountable to no one.
C7 The UN General Assembly? Why would anyone want to place any armed forces under the direction of this ragtag collection of dictators, despots and petty tyrants?
2. Whose version of the "Rule of Law" will this UN Army enforce?
A7 The Constitution of the United States?
B7 Islamic Law? The same Islamic law that now governs Iran and other extremist states? The same Islamic law that requires women to dress in purdah and prohibits them from driving cars?
C7 Napoleonic Law? With its concept of "guilty until proven innocent"?
D7 International Law? As defined by whom?
3. From where does this force derive its legitimacy?
A7 From the "People"?
B7 From voters? Has anyone ever voted for their representative to the UN?
C7 From governments? The same governments that are now the scourge of their populations?
D7 From "elite globalists"? Do we want people like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, Walter Cronkite and Ted Turner to run the world?
4. Where will the loyalty of this force lie?
A7 With the UN?
B7 With the Security Council?
C7 With the "People"?
D7 With the nationality of the forces military leadership?
5. Exactly what are the "civilian police duties" that this force will undertake?
A7 Disarming the local populace? Even if it meant violating the US Constitution Second Amendment protection?
B7 Crime investigation?
C7 Pursuing local warlords and petty criminals? Does anyone remember the fiasco that occurred in Somalia?
6. Where are the rights of citizens identified?
A7 What exactly are those rights?
B7 Are the rights delineated in the US Bill of Rights universally acceptable?
7. Where are abuses of this force prosecuted?
A7 In the International Criminal Court? Would we want American soldiers tried for crimes in a court where they may not have the rights guaranteed in the US Constitution?
B7 In the World Court?
C7 In the target country?
D7 In the US?
8. What is the difference between an invading, occupying UN "Police Force" and an invading, occupying foreign military force?
A7 Why should the local population treat them any differently?
B7 What if the local population resists? Does the UN plan to bomb indiscriminately as NATO did in Kosovo?
9. Who defines "humanitarian crisis"?
A7 Are all civil wars humanitarian crises?
B7 Are "environmental" crises also humanitarian crises?
C7 Would riotous behavior of dissidents and subsequent misbehavior of police warrant intervention by UN troops? How would US citizens react if UN troops had intervened in Seattle? Should the UN intervene in France to resolve the fuel crisis there?
10. In the face of recommended changes to the UN structure, such as elimination of the Security Council and veto powers, what checks will there be to prevent abuse of power? Or are we supposed to blindly trust the UN leadership?
-- William in WI (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 15, 2000.
United Nations Plans for America's Future.
Source: The Phyllis Schlafly Report Published: Sept, 2000 Author: Phyllis Schlafly
At the 55th annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in New York City on September 5-9, 2000, called the Millennium Assembly and Summit, far-reaching plans are underway to turn the corner from a world of sovereign, independent nation-states to a world of disparate peoples subordinated to the supreme authority of the United Nations. These plans call for the total restructuring of the mission and powers of the United Nations.
To achieve this goal, the UN is scheduled to consider at least two actions, by consensus rather than by formal vote: adoption of the Earth Charter, a document whose text has evolved through several drafts since the Earth Summit in 1992, and adoption of a Declaration authorizing a new UN commission to implement recommendations to bring about global governance. Global governance means world government by incremental steps, chipping away at national sovereignty one treaty at a time, one world conference at a time, one UN commission at a time.
A portion of the Millennium Assembly is designated as the Millennium Summit, which President Bill Clinton and 160 heads of state are expected to attend, the largest gathering of heads of state in history. Also meeting at the same time at the New York Hilton will be Mikhail Gorbachev and his State of the World Forum, hoping to help induce heads of state to concur in the Millennium Assembly's historic actions. Gorbachev has been promoting world government ever since his 1992 speech at the Churchill Memorial in Fulton, Missouri, where he called for a "global structure," "a democratically organized world community," a "restructured" United Nations with "armed forces" and "substantial funding," and "some mechanism tying the UN to the world economy."
The Earth Charter's advocates talk as though it were the "Magna Carta" of a new regime, but it's not a regime of freedom from arbitrary kings like King John at Runnymede in 1215. It's a charter to submit Americans to global dictators possessing unprecedented powers.
The UN Millennium Assembly and Summit and its actions should be a major issue in the current presidential campaign since Al Gore has been an enthusiastic supporter of the Earth Charter during its years of development. Republican leaders have yet to be heard from.
The Earth Charter demands that we "demilitarize national security systems" (i.e., eliminate our armed services and their weapons). The Charter proclaims that its "Way Forward" requires "a change of mind and heart" as we move toward "global interdependence and universal responsibility."
The Charter demands that we adopt "sustainable development plans and regulations" (i.e., to subordinate human needs to global fads enforced by environment dictators), and that the UN "manage the use of renewable resources such as water, soil, forest products, and marine life . . . [to] protect the health of ecosystems" (i.e., not the health of mere humans).
The Charter demands that we "act with restraint and efficiency when using energy" (i.e., reduce U.S. energy use and lower our standard of living). The Charter requires that we "eradicate poverty," "promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations," and "relieve them of onerous international debt" (i.e., redistribute U.S. wealth around the world and cancel the debts owed by recipients of U.S. foreign loans).
The Charter exhorts us to affirm "gender equality" and "eliminate discrimination in ... sexual orientation" (i.e., adopt the feminist and gay agendas). The Charter demands that we "integrate into formal education [i.e., assign a UN nanny to monitor our schools] ... skills needed for a sustainable way of life [i.e., indoctrination in how we must subordinate sovereignty to the UN dogma of sustainability]."
The Charter affirms that "all beings are interdependent" (i.e., personal freedom is irrelevant) and "every form of life has value regardless of its worth to human beings" (i.e., animals, plants and insects, but not unborn babies). The Charter demands that we "ensure universal [i.e., global] access to health care that fosters reproductive health [i.e., abortion and contraception] and responsible reproduction [i.e., UN-dictated population control]."
The Earth Charter won't be a treaty that the U.S. Senate can accept or reject. It will be "soft law," a policy document like the UN Declaration on Human Rights, which has no legal standing but gives globalists such as Bill Clinton and global environmentalists such as Al Gore the perch from which they exhort us to "fulfill our international obligations" (even though Americans never accepted such obligations).
The Declaration and Agenda for Action, subtitled "Strengthening the United Nations for the 21st Century," will also be considered by the Millennium Assembly and Summit. This lengthy document, which fleshes out the global plans in more detail, was developed by the UN- accredited Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) who call themselves the Millennium Forum.
The Declaration demands the disarmament of all conventional and nuclear weapons, the prohibition of "unilateral deployment of nationwide missile defense by any country," and a "standing Peace Force" (i.e., a UN standing army). It calls for a "UN Arms register" of all small arms and light weapons, and "peace education" covering "all levels from pre-school through university."
The Declaration calls for "eliminating" the veto and permanent membership in the Security Council so that the United States will be merely one of 160 nations. This would reduce the influence of the United States in the UN to that of Cuba or Haiti even though we pay the lion's share of the budget.
The Declaration calls for the UN to impose direct taxes such as a "currency transfer tax," a "tax on the rental value of land and natural resources," a "royalty on worldwide fossil energy production - - oil, natural gas, coal," "fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions (i.e. the Tobin Tax), and a tax on the carbon content of fuels."
The Declaration calls for "a fair distribution of the earth's resources" (from the United States to the rest of the world, of course), and for the "eradication of poverty" by "redistribution [of] wealth and land." It demands that we "cancel the debts of developing countries."
The Declaration demands UN "democratic political control of the global economy so that it may serve our vision" (i.e., control by 160 nations with the U.S. having only one vote). It calls for UN monitoring of U.S. implementation of Agenda 21 and the Copenhagen Declaration.
The Declaration demands that we "integrate" the World Trade Organization under UN control. All the talk we hear from politicians about "free trade" is just pap for the gullible; the goal is managed trade -- managed by UN bureaucrats.
The Declaration calls for implementing UN treaties that the United States has never ratified, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (which refuses to recognize the right to private property).
The Declaration calls for the unratified International Criminal Court (ICC) to exercise "compulsory jurisdiction" over all states, enforced by the UN Security Council. The ICC is so dangerous to the constitutional rights of Americans that even Bill Clinton declined to sign it after his Administration had spent years participating in writing and negotiating it. The ICC has been signed by a hundred countries, and now the ICC and the UN are impudently asserting jurisdiction over the United States even though we did not sign it.
The Declaration would impose "gender-based methodologies" as adopted at the UN Conference in Beijing.
All this and more of the same could be America's future under an Al Gore presidency.
These radical UN Plans, which originated with the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance, are promoted by the NGOs, the hundreds of private Non-Government Organizations that have attached themselves to the United Nations like leeches. The UN now accredits 1,603 NGOs. Accreditation is dependent on the organization declaring that its primary purpose is to "promote the aims, objectives, and purposes of the United Nations."
The NGOs are energetic lobbyists for dramatic changes in the mission and structure of the UN to achieve global governance. Most NGOs are also members of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which originated many of the global environmental policies set forth in the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on Climate Change, and Agenda 21. The most prominent NGOs are the radical environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the feminist and population-control groups such as Planned Parenthood.
The leader of the UN's restructuring plans is a Canadian named Maurice Strong, who was Secretary General of the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 and has built his power base among the NGOs. Secretary- General Kofi Annan appointed him Executive Coordinator of UN Reform.
The NGOs work the corridors of the United Nations headquarters in New York like typical corporate lobbyists. Persistent lobbying has made the NGOs very influential at the various UN conferences, including the Children's Summit in New York in 1990, the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the Human Rights Conference in Vienna in 1993, the Population Conference in Cairo in 1994, the Social Summit in Copenhagen in 1995, the Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, the Habitat II Conference in Istanbul in 1996, and the World Food Summit in Rome in 1996.
Maurice Strong and the NGOs publicized their extraordinary plans to achieve global governance through the UN in a 410-page report called Our Global Neighborhood, issued in 1995 by the Commission on Global Governance. This document states (p. 359) that the plans to "strengthen" the UN into global government originated with former West German Socialist Chancellor Willy Brandt.
The UN bureaucrats and NGOs have been working ever since on a Charter for Global Democracy to build the framework for a restructured UN, and the plans are now being crystallized in the Earth Charter and the Declaration described above.
The NGOs worked for several years under the name NGO Forum and are now becoming the People's Assembly, as recommended by the Commission on Global Governance. This body of unelected pressure groups with leftwing political agendas is supposed to be formally attached to the UN during the Millennium Assembly. Pompously calling themselves the "civil society," they claim to be the voice of the people, in contrast to the General Assembly, which consists of the representatives of national governments. The NGOs dream of becoming the real power in the UN, bypassing the official representatives of nations.
Clinton Administration representatives at the United Nations are always very supportive of expanded UN powers. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Richard Holbrooke says that "the United Nations must transform its civilian-run peacekeeping department into a larger and more effective military-style operation ..." (New York Times, 6-14-00)
The UN bureaucrats and NGOs are skillful with semantics, and their goal of world government is waffled with words that have specialized meanings but may appear non-threatening. Their jargon words used in a positive connotation are sustainable (their favorite word), global, interdependent, civil society, environmental, inclusive, diversity, common good, demilitarize, fair distribution, international, and universal responsibility. Among the jargon words always used negatively are production and consumption. Forbidden words include independence, freedom and sovereignty.[Williams note: I believe this last paragraph describes all liberals and is an infalable method of detecting any liberal and their true goals.]
Many UN and NGO documents confirm the goals and plans of these tireless promoters of global governance in six areas:
Using the rubric "Peace, Security and Disarmament," the UN wants to establish a UN standing army under the command of the UN Secretary- General, with the ultimate goal of disarming national armies. The UN reformers want to eradicate national sovereignty as a barrier to UN action and use the shibboleth "security of the people" to rationalize UN action inside sovereign countries (as in Kosovo). The plan is to transform sovereign countries into administrative units assigned to carry out UN policies. The UN even wants disarmament of personal guns, with the UN controlling the manufacture, sale, distribution and licensing of all firearms.
In the area called "Eradication of Poverty," the UN wants debt cancellation for poor countries plus Western-financed social development. This means forcing the United States to turn over our wealth to UN bureaucrats to distribute to Third World dictators. Under the do-good caption "Human Rights," the UN plans to enforce its version of global human rights through UN treaties, each of which has its own international compliance commission. These include the UN treaties on the Rights of the Child, on Discrimination Against Women, on Civil and Political Rights, on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and on the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The heading "Sustainable Development" is designed to facilitate total UN control of the environment. In addition to bootstrapping power to the globalists under the unratified Biodiversity Treaty and Kyoto (Global Warming) Protocol, the plan is to use the UN Trusteeship Council to control the "global commons," which is UN terminology for the atmosphere, outer space, non-territorial seas, and the related environment that supports human life.
"Globalization to Achieve Equity, Justice and Diversity" is a catch- all phrase to achieve any other power-grabbing goal the UN and NGO bureaucrats may dream up in the future. They want the authority to equalize rich and poor economies and pretend that redistribution of wealth is equity.
"Strengthening and Democratizing the United Nations" is doubletalk for wiping out all power and influence that the United States might ever exercise in the United Nations. This goal calls for eliminating the veto and permanent member status in the Security Council and giving the UN the power to tax so that it will no longer depend on nations' appropriating funds to pay their dues. UN bureaucrats are salivating over the prospect of passing the Tobin Tax, the brainstorm of James Tobin who lobbied for it during the Copenhagen Summit in 1995. This plan to tax all international financial transactions would funnel an extraordinary $1.5 trillion a year to the UN. Other targets of UN taxing plans include international airline tickets, sea-shipped freight, and ocean fishing. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms has been calling for the United Nations to reform itself and reduce its bloated budgets. But the UN "reform" agenda, now headed by Maurice Strong, is certainly very different from what Senator Helms has in mind.
What can Americans do to preserve our independence and sovereignty? Here are some first steps that should be taken immediately:
The UN Millennium plans must be made an issue with all presidential and congressional candidates. Urge them to pledge to repudiate global governance goals, all proposed UN treaties, and all acceptance of the authority of UN commissions or committees.
Demand endorsement of a law requiring that, if the UN tries to impose any direct tax, the United States shall immediately withdraw from the UN and expel it from our country.
Demand a pledge to oppose or reject all UN proposed treaties, specifically those on the International Criminal Court, Global Warming (Kyoto), Biodiversity, the Rights of the Child, Discrimination Against Women, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Nuclear Test Ban, and any purported extension of the defunct 1972 ABM Treaty.
Demand endorsement of the American Service Members Protection Act, sponsored by Senator Jesse Helms, to cut off U.S. military aid to any country that ratifies the International Criminal Court treaty, prohibit U.S. forces from participating in UN peacekeeping operations unless expressly immunized from ICC jurisdiction by a UN Security Council resolution, and authorize the President to undertake any means "necessary and appropriate" to free U.S. soldiers from ICC captivity.
The liberty, independence and sovereignty of America are at stake.
Clinton's Abuse of the Treaty-Making Power
Annoyed with the Senate's refusal to ratify his various United Nations treaties, Bill Clinton is arrogantly trying to bypass the Senate by signing international agreements to implement them anyway. Each one cedes more U.S. sovereignty to some global organization.
Clinton knows that his proposed United Nations Convention (treaty) on the Rights of the Child will never be ratified by the Senate because it would be a codification of Hillary's plan to put the global "village" in charge of raising children instead of parents. So Clinton made an end-run around that obstacle by going to the UN in New York and signing two protocols to the unratified Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The first of these protocols, a pet project of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), would prohibit military service by minors. This encountered stiff resistance from the Pentagon because every year the U.S. Armed Services enlists about 50,000 high school seniors before their 18th birthday. Clinton worked out a compromise; he agreed not to send them into combat until their 18th birthday.
I guess the negotiators haven't seen The Patriot in which Mel Gibson gives guns to his 10- and 13-year-old sons when British soldiers threatened their family. In any event, the age at which we allow men to serve our country should be a U.S. decision, not one determined by a Clinton treaty or regulated by a commission of foreign bureaucrats, the kind of paper-pushers who expect Americans to do all the fighting and dying in their wars anyway.
The protocol's first paragraph makes its real purpose clear. It is "to achieve the purposes of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the implementation of its provisions."
The protocol is quite lengthy, nine pages of fine print. That gives the global commission lots of excuses to inject itself into U.S. laws and behavior. Article 12, for example, requires that we submit, within two years, a report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child. Since that committee is a creation of Article 44 of the unratified treaty on the Rights of the Child, this is another way that Clinton's protocol locks us into the unratified treaty.
The second protocol that Clinton signed last week would make it a crime to sell children for sex, to engage minors in prostitution, or to use them for pornography. Again, the real purpose is to validate UN authority, not to protect children. Those acts are already crimes in the United States. The countries that engage in such behavior will not be deterred by some piece of paper that Clinton signed.
Furthermore, the UN committee set up to monitor compliance under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) recently ordered China (which has ratified that treaty) to allow women to sell their bodies as "sex workers." The UN committee calls prostitution a "reproductive right" over one's body.
Despite this ruling, HHS Secretary Donna Shalala said on May 31 that the Clinton Administration will continue to push for Senate approval of CEDAW. She added that the Clinton Administration is "quite frustrated on the inability to ratify CEDAW," for which she blames Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms.
While in Cologne, Germany, on June 20, 1999, Clinton announced that he and then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin had agreed to negotiate amendments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. This was a follow-up to the "Memorandum of Understanding" on the 1972 ABM Treaty signed by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on September 26, 1997.
This charade is a dishonest attempt to manufacture a new treaty that takes the decision about defending America against a missile attack away from Congress and cedes it to foreign countries, something that the Senate would never approve. Clinton is using the ploy of these new executive agreements to try to resuscitate the now-moribund 1972 ABM Treaty, which is actually null and void because the Soviet Union no longer exists.
Everything about this treaty-bypass ploy is hurtful to the United States. Clinton is pretending that the successors to the former Soviet Union are only four states -- Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine -- but the remaining 11 countries of the former Soviet Union would be free to develop and deploy ABM systems.
Clinton told the United Nations General Assembly on September 22, 1997 that he wants to take America into a "web of institutions and arrangements" that will set "the international ground rules for the 21st century." Unable to get the advice and consent of the Senate, he is using his last few months to try to bypass the Constitution and do it anyway. Will Congress let him get by such underhanded actions?
Phyllis Schlafly is the author of 16 books, including five books on national defense and foreign policy: The Gravediggers (1964), Strike From Space (1965), and The Betrayers (1968) covering the McNamara years; and Kissinger on the Couch (1975) and Ambush at Vladivostok (1976) covering the Kissinger years. She was a member of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution (1985-1991), by appointment of President Reagan. She is a lawyer, a syndicated columnist, a radio commentator, and the president of Eagle Forum.
-- William in WI (email@example.com), September 15, 2000.
The American Left Handmaidens of the United Nations
Source: Toogood Reports
Published: September 7, 2000 Author: Charles A. Morse
The American left understands that the United Nations is an exclusive club of the rich and powerful and their apparachiks whose "work" is the establishment of socialism and worldwide "collective security". While they sneer at references to the UN as a world government in the making, the UN advocates are attempting to implement just that, regardless of what they call it. The left has always believed in world government with themselves in control, a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". Groups like the World Federalists make no bones concerning their open advocacy of one world government headed up by the UN.
The concept of an un-elected bureaucracy, staffed by quasi-Marxists wielding economic and military power over the world in the name of "peace", is the very core belief and goal of the left and their humanist faith. This elite, believing itself as in possession of a mystical knowledge, feels somehow commanded to conduct the affairs of the world and the intimate affairs of every human being. This view is often held with religious fervor and approached as a crusade.
The political philosophy of the left is that power emanates from government itself. A simple rendering of the UN Charter and the Stalinist Declaration of Human Rights displays this socialistic noblesse oblige outlook. These documents have a lot in common with the Soviet Constitution.
American concepts of liberty and Constitutional government are the exact opposite. We perceive power as emanating from the Creator and reposing in the individual. We call this liberty.
George Washington stated "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master".
America4s purpose is not world government, but rather, maximum individual sovereignty with governments established to protect that sovereignty and nothing more.
A cursory examination of socialist literature, easily accessible in bookstores located near most American campuses, is evidence enough that the left envisions world government with themselves in control. They refer to themselves, euphemistically, as "the people" without addressing how they derived at this designation. They were early advocates of a UN and played an almost exclusive role its creation.
The quintessional American leftist book, Toward Soviet America by Communist Party chairman William Z. Foster, 1932, is explicit in its support:
"The American Soviet government will join with the other Soviet governments in a world Soviet Union Not Christianity (sic) but Communism will bring peace on earth. A Communist world will be a unified, organized world. The economic system will be one great organization, based upon the principle of planning now dawning in the USSR. The American Soviet government will be an important section in this world organization".
Foster, as head of the American Communist Party, was speaking for his masters in the Kremlin. Several years later, at the Dumbarton Oaks estate in Washington D.C., preparations were laid for todays UN. The planners and drafters were almost exclusively American Communists and fellow travelers and included:
Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Soloman Adler, Frank Coe, Lawrence Duggan, Noel Field, Harold Glasser, Irving Kaplan, Victor Perlo, Abraham G. Silverman, Nathan G. Silvermaster, William H. Taylor, William L. Ullman, John Carter Vincent, and Julian Wadleigh.
The American Communist Party4s official theoretical journal, Political Affairs (April 1945), commented "Great popular support and enthusiasm for the United Nations policies should be built up, well organized, and fully articulate. But it is also necessary to do more than that. The opposition must be rendered so impotent that it will be unable to gather any significant support in the Senate against the UN Charter and the treaties which follow."
The left wants us to believe that their usurpation of power is "inevitable" and irreversible once initiated. They see the concentration of power into their hands as an irresistible force of history. This theory constitutes a large part of the work of Karl Marx. The truth is that their totalitarian designs and pretensions are doomed to failure because they contradict human nature.
The salient question, which will be addressed either now, as we watch the millennium conference of the UN with its usurpation of power and rights, or later, as the effects of that usurpation become more noticeable, is this: Will we wake up in time and start exercising our rights as proscribed in our Constitution to disintegrate this artifice, or will we wait until it4s too late and have to confront another American Revolution?
-- William in WI (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 15, 2000.
Author: Steve Farrel Published:September 6,2000
The Un-American United Nations (Millennium Version)
Like many of you, growing up under the tutelage of the public school system and the big three television networks in the 1960s and 1970s, I recall the zealous and reverential treatment afforded the worlds eighth wonder: the United Nations.
Its ideals, they said, were homespun American ideals. Its immediate mission: to perpetuate the same across the globe. Its ultimate objective: to bring an end to poverty, prejudice, conflict and war. Indeed, some envisioned and vigorously proclaimed future life under the United Nations as the last and highest stage of evolutionary man (1).
In textbook and pamphlet, newspaper and film clip this dream was perpetuated, and many of us longing for peace and security in the aftermath of two consecutive world wars were swept away with the imagery and emotion of this coming millennial Zion. It would be glorious.
So glorious that warning bells should have broadcast throughout the land a solemn, "beware!" prior to any casting of votes for or against the UN Charter. But the bells were muffled, the Charter fast-tracked through the US Senate, and today we suffer under our great mistake. Indeed, this very day, September 6, 2000, with 159 heads of state gathering on U.S. soil for a World Millennium Summit, our mistake looms ever larger. The goal of this summit: nothing less than to bring Americas leaders to their knees, to vow strict loyalty, this day and forever, not to our Constitution, to which they are solemnly bound, but to the only true loyalty, the UN Charter, or what Koffi Annan calls the "global soul." We should be alarmed. Compelling evidence, accumulated over the years by a few dedicated citizens and watchdog organizations, (2) reveals this difficult truth: The UNs idealism is less than ideal; its similarity and loyalty to the US system, a facade; its promise for peace and liberty more a formula for war and tyranny; its leaders and founders, dedicated socialists and communists.
The UN was never intended to be our friend. Yet, in the year 2000, we have a President, a State Department and two presidential candidates collectively converted, not to the down-to-earth protection of US sovereignty and liberty under the Constitution, as per their oath of office, but to some pie-in-the-sky vision of a borderless, socially- conscious world under the United Nations. At such a crossroad, re- exposing the uncomfortable truth about the UN cannot be overdone.
The UN is no friend to American ideals
A. The UNs Founders were known Communists
If its true that the personality, purpose and accomplishments of an organization are highly affected by its leadership, then membership in the United Nations spelled trouble from the start. Of the 17 individuals identified by the US State Department as having helped shape US policy leading to the creation of the United Nations, all but one were later identified as secret members of the Communist Party USA (3).
Joining them at the UNs founding conference were 43 members of the ultra influential, ultra pro-socialist, globalist think-tank the Council On Foreign Relations, (6 of the 43 CFR members having the additional distinction of membership in the Communist Party USA) (4). And, importantly, the UNs first Secretary General and orchestrator of the San Francisco conference was the man later convicted as a Soviet agent - Alger Hiss (5). Not a good start.
Following in the footsteps of that unhallowed class of 46, the ideological makeup of the UNs leadership has been constant. In its 54 year history all eight Secretary Generals of the UN have been either dedicated socialists or communists (6), all 15 of the UN Under- Secretary-Generals for Political and Security Council Affairs (the UNs military boss) have been communists (all but one from the Soviet Union/Russian Federation) (7), and two thirds of the membership in the General Assembly, the Security Council, and in the World Court have always been representatives of socialist and communist nations.
Further, the collection of US employees at the UN have not fared well either. Besides the scandal of having American communists Alger Hiss and company as the creators of the UN, a 1952 official Senate investigation into the then 6 year old United Nations revealed, "extensive evidence indicating that there is today in the UN among the American employees there, the greatest concentration of Communists that this committee has ever encountered (8)." And these were high officials.
Twenty years later, the "anti-American, anti-freedom" flavor of the UN continued unabated, which prompted former UN enthusiast, Republican Senator Barry Goldwater to call for US withdrawal from the UN, and the re-stationing of its headquarters to a place "more in keeping with the philosophy of the majority of its voting members, somewhere like Peking or Moscow (9)."
Things were no different by the 1980s. Republican President Ronald Reagan expressed the same sentiments as Goldwater, adding that the UN was the host of the greatest concentration of spies in the world and thus he vowed to withdraw the US from the UN. (He did boot UNESCO out of the US)
Which leads to the next reason the UN deserves our full measure of scorn. With a line-up of communists, socialists, and spies founding and still running the show at the UN; it seems a bit hard to believe that the political framework created by such notorious figures would be consistent with the American Constitution? Isnt it? And there is plenty of proof..
B. The UNs Charter is the antithesis of the US Constitution.
Its Bill of Rights (10) creates radical new rights to include:
The socialist right to "adequate" housing, a "living" wage, rest and leisure, medical care, social services, employment security, sick pay, disability pay, old age security pay, and widows pay.
The family threatening right for children to possess "freedom of thought, conscience, and religion [which has led to children suing their parents in the United States]," and the right to privacy (i.e. the right for a child to seek an abortion without parental consent.)
The sovereignty destroying right for humans to immigrate and receive welfare services in whatever nation they choose. The brainwashing right for "students" to learn the "principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations." And the statist right for the UN to eradicate any and all "rights and freedoms exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations (11)," A Soviet Constitution style proviso, to accompany all of these and more Soviet style rights (12).
Its Promotion of Democratic Institutions is a pretense. Not one UN delegate or official is democratically elected by the people.
The 185 national delegates to the General Assembly dont possess real representative power anyway. They may only "consider . . . discuss . . . advise . . . or make suggestions to the Security Council (13)." An arrangement similar to the meaningless representation the American Colonies suffered under the British Parliament.
However, the 15 member nations of the Security Council (5 permanent members and ten rotating) do have substantial power and are unchecked in this power by election or constitutional constraint. Which leads to the next point (14).
Its Separation of Powers is an illusion.
The UN appears to have three separate branches of government with the General Assembly and the Security Council being symbolic of our House and Senate; the Secretary General symbolic of our President; and the World Court symbolic of our Supreme Court.
But, as already demonstrated, the General Assembly has only advisory powers, the Secretary General is but the chief administrative officer of the UN, who, like the General Assembly, may only "bring to the attention of the Security Council" matters he deems important (15), while the World Court is subject to the Security Councils absolute veto upon any of its decisions. Furthermore, the Security Council may, if it so chooses, judge any legal matter it sees fit, only being advised to "take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred to the International Court of Justice (16)."
Thus all powers legislative, executive, and judicial reside in the Security Council, with the five permanent members being the real power center since the non- permanent members serve but two years (17) and lack absolute veto power (18).
Stunningly, in the serious matter of sanctions or war, once initiated, the General Assembly is even stripped of its petty right to consult with the Security Council, unless the Council "requests" their input (19).
Additionally, regional military and economic alliances, such as NATO, the EU, ASIAN, and NAFTA, are all, by their own treaty law, and the UN Charter which authorized their existence, subject to the rule of the UN Security Council, to whom they must report all actions "under contemplation;" to whom they must seek the approval for any sanctions they intend to impose; and to whom they must bow in obeisance when the Security Council deems it necessary to delegate out enforcement actions (20).
Thus regional arrangements are part of the UN web, and subject to the centralized control of the few men who make up the permanent membership of the Security Council.
Monstesque taught, and the founders concurred and improved on the principle, that the concentration of all power legislative, executive, and judicial in one office is the very definition of tyranny (21). So what then is the Security Council but a budding five- headed world tyrant?
Its National Sovereignty Protection clause was and is a ploy. Article 2, Verse 7 which forbids the UN from intervening "in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state" was inserted as an afterthought to calm the fears of conservatives in the US Senate 50 years ago. The clause offers no such security.
Every other clause, every other sentence, every other word in the UN Charter calls for international oversight over every possible affair on the planet. Even the sovereignty clause has a mile wide escape hatch which reads "this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII."
Chapter VII, Articles 39 through 42 include the Security Councils power to "determine the existence of any threat to. . .international peace and security," and then to take whatever actions "as may be necessary" such as "interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communications," and or, "action by air, sea, or land forces." Chapter VII, Article 50 even gives the Security Council the power to wage war or impose sanctions on non-member nations. If that isnt the power to intervene in internal matters, what is?
Evidence enough, says former Top Communist Party member, Joseph Z. Kornfeder, that its clearly recognizable that "the UN "blueprint" is a communist one (22)."
The UN has not protected sovereignty, nor promoted freedom
A. The UNs history confirms the above claim.
The UN is the enemy of national sovereignty. A few examples:
The Word Trade Organization (another regional arrangement under the UN Charter), for instance, usurps the right of nations to establish their own foreign commerce policy via 40,000 pages of regulations, scores of regulatory agencies, and its use of sanctions against violators, proving itself the enemy, not the friend of free trade.
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (also part of the UN Circle) routinely blackmail client nations to alter internal policies via structural loans (23). Typically, they demand the establishment of planned economies; the nationalization of utilities, major industries, and banking; the creation of export dependent economies; and the implementation of national birth control policies. In a nutshell, in the name of fiscal responsibility, they subtly push socialist based economic, social, and political philosophies which stifle economic independence, and foster greater dependence on the UN, its banks, and the international community.
The UNs military uses brute force to decide the fate of wars between sovereign nations and or internal warring factions as it did in the Belgium Congo, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, and Haiti.
Presently, the UN is engaged in 14 "peacekeeping" operations (wars) enlisting troops from 77 nations (world wars), and has waged war 62 times in its brief 56 years of existence. Some peace organization! More quietly, it has murdered hundreds of thousands through trade embargoes, a half million children in Iraq alone (24), robbing innocent civilians of the necessities of life, all because the UN denies the sovereign right of nations, like Iraq, to maintain a modern national defense system.
Not surprisingly, the UN opposes the building by the United States of a 21st Century missile defense system to protect our sovereignty - even while the UN ignores continued Russian and Chinese targeting of major US cities, continued Russian and Chinese missile modernization programs, and continued Russian and Chinese First-Strike Doctrines.
And as for respecting Sovereignty, and human rights, consider this, one of the major goals of the Millennial Summit is a call for the establishment of a permanent standing UN Army on US soil (which Clinton appallingly supports) who will go to war at the whim of the UN, so that the UN may never again have to submit to the "cumbersome" process of gaining approval of the sovereign nations and their peoples who must fight, die, and pay for these wars.
The UNs war on sovereignty continues
UNESCO and the World Health Organization have wormed their way into member governments promoting sex education, homosexuality as normal and healthy, abortion, the right of a child to "privacy," population control, and scientific breeding (25).
The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), first led by passionate socialist and New-Ager Maurice Strong, has set fear-driven environmental standards which are currently being implemented in the United States and many other "free" nations. Targeted is the US, who is the "guilty" party that must pay the worlds environmental bill. Aligned with that charge are calls for the worldwide redistribution of wealth and technology. And because environmental threats are in this fanatical view, "the number 1 international security concern," national sovereignty has been identified by UNEP as a barrier that must be breached (26).
Truth is, there are so many regulatory agencies listed on the UNs homepage, branching off in so many different directions with sub- agencies, and sub-agencies of sub-agencies, that are designed to interfere with the sovereignty of nations, that one could spend a week of research trying to come up with an honest head count.
However, as part of the year 2000 Summit kickoff, the UN has several more major sovereignty destroying proposals aimed straight at the United States. 1.The elimination of the absolute veto power of the United States, which means that two communist states, Russia and China, and one socialist leaning member of the EU, England, or more especially France, by majority vote can outgun the United States in the Security Council and impose laws upon us over our protest. 2. An enlargement of the powers of the World Court, who by Judicial Review could do more damage in one year to our Constitution then the Supreme Court ever did in decades. 3. An expanded role for the UN in the regulation of international commerce and as an overseer to individual corporations. 4. A new and dangerous power to tax the world, and thus, indefinitely fund the growth of world government. 5. Blatant confessions by the UNs Chief Anan that the continued protection of national sovereignty is obsolete and dangerous.
The UN aids Communists and attacks non-Communists and Capitalists
In the 1950s the UN undermined freedoms victory in Korea by accepting rules of engagement and passing on secrets to Russia and China which made victory impossible for South Korea and the United States (27). They then chose silence and inaction while Soviet tanks rolled into Hungary crushing freedom fighters who fought these tanks with sticks and stones.
In the 1960s the UN invaded Katanga (in the Belgium Congo) and foiled that provinces quest for independence from communist murderer and torturer Patrice Lamumba (28); and likewise declared tiny Rhodesia "a threat to international peace," enabling pro-Communist terrorist Robert Mugabe to seize power. Both the result of an official UN "anti-colonialist" (29) policy which in the name of democracy spread communism throughout Africa, Asia, and the Americas from the 1950s clear up into the 1980s. Showing their pro-Communist partisanship, Russia, China, and Cubas influence on all of these revolutions was perennially and officially denied by the UN, who dubbed all communist revolutions as "spontaneous." uprisings of the poor and politically ostracized.
In the 1970s, the UN admitted mass murderer Red China, despite the Charter rule to admit "peace-loving nations (30)" only. They added insult to injury by granting China the power and prestige of permanent Security Council status, while simultaneously kicking out free Taiwan. They winked while Security Council member the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, but then suppressed IMF loans to Nicaragua and Iran at key moments in their battle against communist backed revolutions in their nations, citing "human rights" violations (31).
In the 1980s the UN organized an international boycott against South Africa which favored the Soviet, PLO, and Cuban backed African National Congress, which in turn toppled the South African government (the key UN anti-colonial victory in Africa), leading to an immediate turn toward socialism (his first act was to socialize medicine), foreign aid, reverse discrimination, and a nullification of a promised coalition government. Amazingly, the UN pushed for and enforced the boycott even though Mandela upon release from prison publicly declared his loyalty to and the ANCs alliance with the South African Communist Party (32).
In the 1990s the UN disarmed anti-Communist forces in Nicaragua; imposed economic sanctions on Iraq for invading old Soviet friend Kuwait, hypocritically sent annual foodstuffs to communist North Korea, imposed a coalition government on Muslims with Communists in Bosnia, opposed US sanctions against Cuba, indicted President Pinochet for his suppression and imprisonment of communists in Chile, and continues to support the right of Russia and China to suppress liberty in Chechnya and Taiwan. The UN is a Fraud, and Yet It Continues Unabated
Soviet Dictator Vladimir Lenin in his work Imperialism and World Economy predicted a day of capitalistic imperialism wherein a "new social order" would be introduced which under the leadership of "a single world trust," would "swallow up all enterprises and all states without exception."
Under this system, capitalism would move toward a mixture of private capital and social production (That form of socialism called fascism, or state monopoly capitalism). But before this melting of "economic, political, [and] national" systems finished its job of "world union," he predicted, "imperialism will inevitably explode, [and] capitalism will turn into its opposite [communism] (33)."
A dire prophecy, and one which should focus our attention on the real, more subtle communist threat in the world today - the United Nations.
Earl Browder, general secretary of the Communist Party USA admitted in his book Victory and After, that "the American Communists worked energetically and tirelessly to lay the foundations for the United Nations which we were sure would come into existence," and that, "the United Nations is the instrument for victory [the victory of communism] (34)."
But let us hope he was dreaming, and that millions of Americans will wake up to the fact that they were lied to by their state run schools, by UN generated pamphlets, and by the big three networks. Sensible and freedom loving Americans should realize that we can do better in our goals to achieve peace and liberty than provide moral support, cash, and housing for such a sham for liberty and peace as the United Nations.
1. See Humanist Manifesto I and II
2. Howard Phillips Conservative Caucus, Phyllis Schlaflys Eagle Forum, Pat Buchanans American Cause, but most especially Robert Welchs John Birch Society (which has fought the UN for 40 years)
3. Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, 1839-1845, US State Department; Interlocking Subversion in Government Departments, US Senate Internal Security Subcommittee report, July 30, 1953.
4. Jasper, William F. Global Tyranny Step By Step: The United Nations and the Emerging World Order (Appleton, WI: Western Islands 1992) pp. 47-48.
5. Ibid., pp. 47-48.
6. Ibid., pp. 67-71.
7. Ibid., pp. 16-17.
8. Activities of US Citizens Employed by the UN, hearings before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 1952, pp. 407-408.
9. US Senator Barry Goldwater, Congressional Record, October 26, 1971, p. S16764.
10. See The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, The UN Conference on the Child. See also, the assortment of resolutions and addendums found at the UNs Webpages which have been added over the years.
11. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29, Verse 3. Note: Verse 2 also utilizes the tactic of the old Soviet and "new" Russian Constitution when it states: "in the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law." And of course the law then rules against rights, which rights are inalienable in the US system.
12. Griffin, G. Edward. The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations (Boston, MA, Western Islands, 1964) pp. 126-127.
13. UN Charter, Articles 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 18.
14. Ibid., Articles 23-54, 83-84, 93-94. 15. Ibid., Article 99.
16. Ibid., Article 36, Verse 3.
17. Ibid., Article 23.
18. The absolute veto, unlike the veto power of US Presidents cannot be subject to an override vote. It is, as it says, absolute, and thus a dictatorial power.
19. UN Charter, Article 12, Verse 1.
20. Ibid., Article 52, Verse 3, Article 53, Verse 1, and Article 54. 21. Madison, James, Federalist Papers, Article 47.
22. Griffin, p. 120.
23. Structural loans require loan recipients to comply with political terms in order to get the cash.
24. BBC, Iraq Reports Attacks Outside No-fly Zones, August 17, 1999. UNESCO is the source the BBC quoted as per the half million figure.
25. Jasper, Chapters 8 and 9.
26. Ibid., Chapter 7.
27. See this authors article: The No Win Wars of Internationalism: Korea
28. Griffin, pp. 3-64
29. UN Charter, Article 3. The UN has ignored this provision, preferring "universality ."
30. This policy, based on UN Article 1, Verse 2s, respect for "self determination of peoples" has translated into the UN promotion of socialist revolutions where any minority or group of minorities can be identified and convinced that he or she is not fairly represented or treated. Self determination is not, however, looked upon by the UN as the right of free majorities, or laisee faire believing minorities.
31. Somoza, Anastasio; and Cox, Jack. Nicaragua Betrayed (Western Islands, Boston MA, 1980) pp. 398-399.
32. McAlvaney, Don. Revolution and Betrayal: The Accelerating Onslought Against South Africa (Appleton, WI, American Opinion Book Services) Video, see http://jbs.org/aobs/store/page102.htmln Visit www.mg.co.za/mg/news/mandela/pictures5.html - a pro Mandela site. And his 1990 salute to South African communist party, found at the official Mandela site www.mandela80.iafrica.com/home.htm. It reads "I salute the South African Communist Party for its sterling contribution to the struggle for democracy. You have survived 40 years of unrelenting persecution. The memory of great communists like Moses Kotane, Yusuf Dadoo, Bram Fischer and Moses Mabhida will be cherished for generations to come. I salute General Secretary Joe Slovo - one of our finest patriots. We are heartened by the fact that the alliance between ourselves [the ANC] and the Party [South African Communist Party] remains as strong as it always was."
33. As quoted by William Z. Foster, founder of the Communist Party USA in a reprint of his 1932 work, Toward a Soviet America. The book was reprinted under the direction of the Committee on Un-American Activities (Balboa Island, CA, Elgin Publications, 1961) pp. 172, 269- 270.
34. Browder, Earl. Victory - And After (New York: International Publishers, 1942) pp. 110, 160, 169
-- William in WI (email@example.com), September 15, 2000.
Sorry, I can't bring myself to read the long posta. Maybe I am just an old hillbilly like Hoot. God bless him, us and them.
-- Terri Perry (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 15, 2000.
You rock, William.
-- Doreen (email@example.com), September 15, 2000.
As long as there are seperate countries in the world the UN is the place to keep the peace without armed conflict. No leader is going to give up their individual power and be subservient to someone else. If Kosovo had been taken to the UN instead of NATO(actually NATO is us and we are it)many helpless people would not have had to die. We did what we condemed the Germans in World War 2 for doing. It does seem funny that at the time of the attack Clinton was once again in trouble with sex scandels. This did effectively switch the direction that people were looking. Since no reason was given for the attack on Yugoslavia I can only conclude there was none. The main excuse was that people were being thrown out of their homes. But in reality this did not happen until Clinton made his ultimatum. They had no choice. Did you notice that NATO killed moore than the Serbs. Out of 800,000 people disposessed there were very few killed. Since when is it wrong to protect your country against terorist. It is wrong to go against a country just because they are Communist. That is simply a different type of government.We as a country have been responsable for the deaths of so many just because they were communist. They really can't hurt you. But the UN lets countries vote on matters and this outrage in Kosovo would not have happened and the situation could have been handled in a more humane manner. So choose-the U N or NATO on the loose.
-- Nick Tepsick (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 15, 2000.
Nick, you say...
"As long as there are seperate countries in the world the UN is the place to keep the peace without armed conflict."
If and when the UN gets it's way there will not be any SOVEREIGN countries in the world. That means that if we don't think exactly the same as THE UN wants us to, we can line up for the same showers the Nazi's gave to people who didn't fit into their plan. It is not supportive of diversity if you don't like Communism, or have something that is necessary to enact out their goals of a One World Government.
You also say... "No leader is going to give up their individual power and be subservient to someone else."
Might I suggest to you that they already have by being a compliant member of the UN. Look at the Gulf "war" for a second. Never even declared war, but a lot of people were killed in the name of oil, and we had the first "UN" against a leader of a country, supposedly.
All of these alliances we create are just a way to bring our friends to the playground to fight our battles with us. I think we're worse off with these undeclared un constitutional wars, than without them.
Regarding Kosovo, we had no right there PERIOD.Neither did the UN, of which we are a chief member, or NATO. There's one of the myriads of problems with our present government. The President uses our military to cause distractions. I don't understand how the folks in the military can even stay there with Clinton as the Commander in Chief. I truly don't, but that's another story.
It is wrong to go against a country just because they are Communist. That is simply a different type of government.We as a country have been responsable for the deaths of so many just because they were communist.
Have you any idea how many resistors or dissidents Communism has killed? I will need to look this all up,but I can't right now because I have a horrible disconnection thing going on, but Stalin killed something like 28 million people,China kills millions per year. It is a lot more than just a different form of Government. It is an affront to God, thought, freedom, self-determination, families, and decency. It's a lovely little ideology that has no healthy basis once it crawls off a piece of paper and gets implented on anything larger than small community scale. It is not alright. Pretending that it is anything less than the evil it is and has shown itself to be is flat out stupid.
You are right, we have killed so many just because they didn't agree with our government, which I think is part of the reasoning behind secession to begin with. A government that is too large and cumbersome to maintain accountability for it's actions to the people it is supposed to govern needs to be broken down into smaller more easily monitored sections.
"So choose-the U N or NATO on the loose."
No choice here as all the members of NATO are members of the UN. How can you choose when there isn't a choice? I pass.
-- Doreen (email@example.com), September 16, 2000.
Choose NATO or the UN means choose a group controlled by us with no votes from the other sides on action or the UN where other countries by their votes would have stoped the Kosovo attack. When you count the deaths find out how many came from so called freedom fighters and how many were killed by grads from school of the americas. We impose more on other nations than any country in the world today. If Bush is elected there will be a world wide arms race once again. This time with different players. When I was in Nam I found the comunist to be people that were fihgting for the right to live and raise food to feed their children. Too many nations told them what to do and killed them if they didn't. The French were brutal and killed so many for no reason other then control. Then the government supported by us did the same. Who else did they have to turn to? I suppose you approve the use of cluster bombs in Yugoslavia and hit teams that are there to upset their government and kill the leaders if possible. Attacking someone that is helples and unable to protect themselves is a cowards act that rest on Clintons head. But a lot of this has gone on for a long time. We punish Cuba and Irac and the old and young die. Why are we still there? Why are we in Kosovo mistreating the people there? Do you really see no wrong on the side of Democrocy? Look coser
-- Nick Tepsick (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 17, 2000.
Nick, it has been a couple of years since I checked this particular scenario of UN voting, but I believe that the average was somethinglike 80% of the countries voting against the US most of the time. I personally vote against the US in the unConstitutional government we have now. But that's mostly thanks to FDR and illegal pieces of legislation called Executive Orders.
I am sorry that you had to go to Nam. We should have never been involved in that at all. We also should have never been involved on Kosovo. Nor Haiti, nor Kuwait, nor Bosnia, it goes on and on.
It is upsetting to me personally that you take a Constitutionalist's stance as being one that approves of cluster bombing civilians in a country in which we have no business. Perhaps you aren't understanding.
I never said that people who desire a communist government aren't people. They are completely avoiding the FACT that true communism does not work on anything larger than perhaps 50-100 people MAX. Only then if they share all other ideologies as well. The only reason we still have any communist countries in existence is because most of the world is capitalist and therefore augment the communists with currency to continue. But just because we disagree doesn't mean I think we should kill them. I will not go drinking at that trough, even if you try to make me, and ii am against the socialist/communist turns this nation is taking.
Where do you get the idea that Bush is going to create another Arms race? Because he said he wanted to do things to get our military off of food stamps? Gore would like to see the military called out to stop someone from peeing by the side of the road on an endangered crickets head. Which is more ludicrous? Mind you, I don't like Dubya, or Gore. I want a Constitutional government, not socialist and not corporatist, and certainly not communist as all of the latest UN treatises and the "We the Peoples" declarations make manifest.
In case you have forgotten, America is supposed to operate as a Democratic Republic, not a pure democracy.
Which deaths are you suggesting I count? I know about the "school of the Americas" and it is yet another slice of manure pie in this nations legacy. But they aren't the communist deaths I was referring to in my previous post.
Nick, do you like communism?
-- doreen (email@example.com), September 17, 2000.
It's not a like or dislike as far as I was able to see when in Southeast Asia the people did not state what they were. They tried to live their lives without someone killing them. Why can't we go somewhere and see what is there, without condeming it or making fun of it. Most of the nations of NATO have bloody backgrounds that are unbeliveable. I don't care what they are and I can treat them as people without making them change to my ways. It would be nice to travel in countries and see how they really live. Not just the areas set up to cater to U.S. tourist. By the way I don't believe in the use of cluster bombs. Since I have family in Yugoslavia their use in that situation had impact on me.
-- Nick Tepsick (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 18, 2000.
First I would like to say that, William your posts were awesome! Do you mind if I post it to my about freedom mailing list? Thank you so much for taking the time to wipe the cobwebs away. Second, The only purpose that the UN has, is to deny the civil rights of everyone in the world, by stripping away those rights, and replacing them with the right to be members of the proletariet with no control over their lives whatsoever. In the process this will establish a regime to guarantee that all those rights which our founding father's were trying to insure will be destroyed, and creating the military might to keep it that way. The current goal of the UN is to create it's own army to insure compliance to it's laws. I am not for isolationism, but I am for common sense. When we give up our sovereignty, we give up our ability to control our own destiny. Have we learned no lessons from history? I honestly think this nation has been spoonfed so much garbage through our state schools, that we have lost our ability to think for ourselves. Today we consider learning to be regurgitation, and when we are feeding our students spoonfuls of the Communist Manifesto, we can expect them to vomit the garbage back up in the voting booth, if indeed they take the time to vote. Otherwise we can expect them to be good little members of the state, and keep quiet while we ease them into a worldwide version of communism, which was the original goal of the "intellectuals" that began feeding this garbage to the public around a hundred years ago. Nevermind that this political philosophy led to some of the bloodiest years in history. The UN was created by communists, and will be used by communists. Ultimately we will either fall in line with it or fight the battle for freedom again. There is a quote by Marx I believe that essentially says that America would not be a problem for Communism because Communism could wait while America destroyed herself from the inside out. There is a principle in the very core of communism that calls for strategic attack and retreat. It was said in the past that communism would win by knowing when to back off and let the world think that communism had failed. In this way the founders of communism felt they could lull their enemies into submission. Watch and beware. Isolationism is to only use and produce what our country consumes, and never to associate with any other country at all. Common sense is to associate, but never bind ourselves to another country by placing our laws and founding documents in jeopardy.
Little bit farm
-- Little bit Farm (email@example.com), September 18, 2000.
Go ahead, note though that not all those thoughts are mine.
BTW, did you notice that there have been no comments by our resident reds?
-- William in WI (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 19, 2000.
The United Nations has contributed to our world in so many ways that there is no real way that it cannot be considered beneficial to the world in which we live. The problem that we all face is that many of our home lands have blinded us with their own policies they wish to enforce, and perhaps how the United Nations cannot do this, that we are brainwashed into believing that the UN is a useless body. However, without it, women in underdeveloped countries, classified as the G-77 would not have the rights that they do at the moment, nor would they be considered as significant an issue. As seen in the Human Rights Commission, which itself has a special committee designed to discuss womens rights, the United Nations itself deals with prominant issues that need to be addressed in the world today. There are however downsides to the United Nations, as would come with any international organisation set up with many contributers whose governments differ. The five permanent members of the Security Council, the United States, China, France, The United Kingdom, and the Russian Federation all have the veto power, and the power bestowed in their hands while in any coference involving the security council and issues which violate that countries policies can be vetoed. in this sense, the UN will have no power in helping the world to progress, when in sense it is run by only 5 countries.
-- Susan Richards-Benson (email@example.com), February 13, 2001.