Let Them Play U.N. Somewhere Else, Or Keep Our Seat To Block Its Evil?

Woodrow Wilson, The original liberal, progressive, or left wing President, (whatever they are calling themselves today,) had this terrific idea to set up a playpen for the world’s diplomats to hash out their differences. The idea would be that we could prevent wars by preemptive diplomacy prior to hostilities beginning. The idea incorporated the thinking that there were no real differences in ideology, that all people basically wanted the same goals, just that skirmishes happened due to misunderstandings. It held that no society was better or worse than any other, and that no behavior was any better or worse than any other. This is a key tenant in leftist thinking. After we failed to join the League of Nations, part of the blame for WWII was placed on this fact. So we wasted no time in joining the United Nations.

The rest of the world knew, as we did, that such a body was meaningless without U.S. involvement. The world’s most dominant nation could not be absent, and still be viable. A deal was struck to give us a permanent seat on what is called the Security Council, complete with a veto power to block shenanigans. Four other nations share this privilege. Fast forward please to today.

So here we are at the end of 2010. The U.N. has grown in scope as the world’s greatest advocate for thugs, rapists, terrorists, and thieves. Guess who pays over a quarter of its expenses. That’s right, we, the American People. Where are they headquartered? Well, they reside here in New York.

Just to fill you in on what the U.N. is up to, here are some of their greatest hits: UNICEF, which runs ads every year to get children to collect money for donations for a food bank, turns around and donates the money to buy explosives and weapons for, Palestinians,” who in turn use it to kill Israeli children. The Congo Relief effort turned out to be a pedophile club where adult peacekeepers could rape Congolese children. The U.N. sanctions against Iraq following the first Gulf War turned into a shakedown scheme where Billions of dollars ended up in Swiss bank accounts owned by the Secretary General and his children, and of course partially used to fund terrorist operations against Israel. We could spend months speaking to the issue of the Human Rights Council, but we should just leave it at their membership including the planet’s worst human rights violators. This would include Iran, where woman are stoned for getting themselves raped. Saudi Arabia is a member, where woman are whipped for the crime of driving a car. Libya is a member, that bastion of human decency. China, where dissidents are shot in the back of the head and the family of said dissidents charged for the price of the ammunition used. Going back through its history, I can only think of two things the U.N. did that could be considered positive. The formation of Israel, and the defense of South Korea. The U.N. turned on Israel 30 years ago. This week, It reversed itself on the lone remaining positive, it turned on the Republic of South Korea. So, where does that leave us?

Well, in my opinion, it leaves us here. Now that the conservatives in this country will have control of the purse strings as of January 4, 2011, we should de-fund the U.N. We should also keep our seat. I, unlike other conservatives, don’t believe in pulling out completely. The veto power of the security council is still important. Our lack of funding would serve to do that anyhow, but by remaining, we could make certain that no shenanigans could occur while it remained a viable institution. There will still be dolts like Ted Turner, and George Soros, et al. to keep the sick joke going, but eventually they would stop. The recent State Level elections will keep conservatives in the majority of the House for the next 10 years. (This is due to the recent gains made at the gubernatorial and legislature levels in State elections.) As soon as the U.N. fails to meet its rent obligations in New York, evict them. I believe this is the best way to kill the beast known as the United Nations.

A little on the need for such a body. Can anyone name a time in history where a lasting peace was achieved by diplomats? History is full of examples where decisive military victory achieved peace. War is terrible, appeasing thugs is worse. Diplomacy only accomplishes the latter. By talking to thugs, they are validated, and their importance enhanced. Peace occurs when both sides have something to lose when it is gone. In a perfect word, we would not need borders, armies, or to defend our interests. The perfect world scenario fails to take into account human behavior. There will always be thugs who wish to advance their own self interests, not by enriching those around them, but by seeking to gain power over them. We will, unfortunately need to kick their collective asses. In short, Ronald Reagan was right. I would also like to stipulate that John Bolton be our last ambassador to the U.N. He gets it.

I would like to add for my Libertarian friends, I understand your sentiment for open borders in the world, and I actually agree to a point. That sentiment ignores however the ethnic and social borders imposed by physical location on the globe and assumes a perfect world. I do not agree that an open bordered world will ever be actually possible. I do not wish to fall prey to thugs who would wish to subjugate us due to a lack of fighting back in a cohesive manner. This is why I support a strong national defense and the other Conservative views on foreign policy that I do. I do however love the argument. So feel free to tell me how wrong I am in the comment section, like you always do.

flyovercountry is a regular here, but his awesome website can be found here.

4 Comments
  1. It’s a little late to defund the UN, the US hasn’t been keeping up with its obligations to the UN for over 50 years… In fact, I’ll go one further, show me where in the US budget this “quarter of the UN funding” is, then show me similar numbers totalling 25% of the UN budget.

  2. I understand your sentiment for open borders in the world, and I actually agree to a point. That sentiment ignores however the ethnic and social borders imposed by physical location on the globe and assumes a perfect world. I do not agree that an open bordered world will ever be actually possible.

    Internet. Borders are irrelevant to everything except physical movement.

%d bloggers like this: